Ann: VHD Technology - Thermal Performance Breakthrough, page-38

Changing from conductivity to diffusivity units is fine if it better suits the target use cases.
Nothing can be hidden by doing that, as they're related values and, after assuming a value for the material's specific heat capacity, they can be converted between each other.

These charts from their presentation showed properties of the lab-produced VHD graphite. Best in class! Sure, they switch from pyrolytic graphite to conventional, no biggie, pyrolytic is too expensive, but still relevant for the bulk density chart?

And in today's announcement, they change units, so that we can't easily compare the pilot-produced samples to the lab-produced.
So we plug in the the numbers to find a diffusivity for lab-produced and a conductivity of pilot-produced, add pyrolytic graphite back in, and add some other thermal management technologies, and we get charts like these:
The samples still conduct and diffuse heat, so the pilot process works! Just not as well as lab-scale samples yet.
By not presenting the pilot and lab results side-by-side in the same units, GCM doesn't have to mention the difference in performance.

It's hard to find values for heat pipes and vapour chambers; they seem to exceed pyrolytic graphite, but they will have packaging constraints and might weigh more than VHD G. They're already used in consumer electronics, as part of CPU and GPU coolers and even smartphones now. They might be worth a mention by the company as a competing technology at some point.

Thanks for the discussion, I'm optimistic and really interested to see how this commercialisation goes and where the material ends up getting used.