(responding to boy99)Yes, his presentation skills are themselves...

(responding to boy99)

Yes, his presentation skills are themselves an asset for the company.

To nitpick, the company, both via Ron and Scott, have managed to keep the conversation about the products very qualitative so far, it seems to me. I've bought their pitch but I'm really interested to see what the sensitivity (looking for false negatives) and specificity (looking for false positives) numbers come out as. What would be pass marks for a critical assessment such as a brain scan. I've seen elsewhere where a sensitivity score of above 90% was good enough for a medical device but would 1 in 10 misses for a brain bleed cut the mustard? Going on a couple of papers I googled up that looked at the s & s of MRTs and CTs a 90% number may be more than good enough (noting it seems the later the tests are run the more accurate the reading is).

I point out that I have a buy on this stock so while the question niggles me on balance I do think the company remains on track. But another doubt I have is that given how long the stage 2 of the pre-validation phase has taken - I see vintage calculated about 9 months - and given the the validation phase involves a larger sample what is the probability of them being to go to the market within 18 months. The Chair in his AGM speech last November and I think Scott in this most recent interview indicated they expect to go to market with Gen 1 /emu in FY25. In my limited experience medical regulatory processes always, always, take longer than you'd expect.