Ann: Elanco Option Update, page-134

What I am curious to understand is where the mismatch in expected goals or outcome was.

PAA clearly stated many times that stable disease was a good outcome. I assumed, wrongly it appears, that given Elancos apparent involvement in trial parameters that they would have shared that opinion.

It is now clear Elanco expected regression or at least a much larger trial number for stable disease. It seems this has come as a surprise for PAA.

How did the expectations become so mismatched, given Elancos apparent involvement in setting up the trial. Something doesn't add up.