Inside PB's ACB model & the secret sauce for ICE#2

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Given the recent discussions (over multiple threads) on the change of well design for ICE#2, the whys and hows etc; id like to create this thread to discuss what we can interpret out of the information we have currently be given, what we will be given tomorrow at the investors presentation and what we will take from the results from seismics, and keep this discussion in one place.
for us to understand and discuss the method, reasoning and logic  going on behind the scenes we need to understand what the PB/DW team is thinking and how they are thinking about this play. A member (forgive me i cant remember who) posted a link to PB 2013 talk re the texas shale play and the overall methodology behind such a play(s), what was interesting about this is his method of identifying the issues and running with the information he gets given and learning on the fly:

He describes the discovery process as:
Scientific Mode (ABC) A: Issues --> B: How --> C: Results
Innovation Mode (ACB) A: Issues --> C: Results --> B: How

with ACB being his preferred method, So my questions are: what is PB's "Why" in the ICE#2 hole - Is this considered a "New Play" in his terms, how and why did ICE#1 data and the siesmics change the design of the ICE#2 hole, i would encourage we keep this thread to discussion on the well design, geological perspective & the "secret sauce" PB is looking for in this play.