Yes, caveats are important and this is exactly why I don't believe one clause in the agreement trumps every other clause. The various clauses outlining who can do what should be regarded as checks and balances to limit the possibility of one party going NATO and throwing their weight around.
Jon did state Acadia needs to present data/studies for review in the indications it wants to pursue and that is clearly outlined in the agreement (5.5(c)). This is not an informal understanding, it's a contractual requirement.
The only question is does the clause that says Acadia has the power to designate which disease is an indication trump the requirement to present data/studies to the JSC for the indications it wishes to pursue. It's not clear whether it does, but I accept your assertion that when it comes to the crunch it probably does. Jon isn't perturbed by it, there are mechanisms in place to find common ground whereby both parties can benefit. And additionally, I too believe this won't affect the valuation in a takeover.
(20min delay)