why now, page-12

Missing the point Sput, - of course it can be resolved.... I do not think it is even a big problem at all. My subtle point is why is the MPS asking SBL to fix it to their satisfaction and if not ... no final product approval.

You state
"They put the climate issue in the update because they felt obliged to"

You miss the point here, it is not a climate issue they put in but a final product approval issue. I was not asking about the climate issue that is pretty inept as a problem and I believe irrelevant, I was asking about another criteria being slipped in before final product approval will be given.

If this is old ground please point to just one post that talks about this sentence I have quoted several times now about approval being based on MPS satisfaction...

The point I was leading up to is this. As we approach the June-July milestone of final product approval are the MPS going to keep changing the goal posts and add more burdens on to SBL to be satisfied before approval. Is this a one off hick up or a trend that will become more dominate. Remember this is not the first time they have asked us to go back to the drawing board. They know we have everything riding on this, not to mention the time constraints so why not exploit that position to their advantage. I would.