I was referring to Hottod's post where she stated Neuren...

I was referring to Hottod's post where she stated Neuren doesn't need to seek JSC approval or otherwise for its undisclosed indications. She is technically correct of course, but it's a pedantic distraction and causes confusion for those people who are seeking clarity on what Neuren can and cannot do. I stated that Neuren would need to clear the undisclosed indications with Acadia broadly speaking, more so to ensure there is no conflict of interest when it does happen rather than seeking actual permission. Her position is that ultimately Acadia has final say on which indications Neuren can proceed with, she reaffirmed this when she posted about the revised agreement allowing for the four additional indications. Then to say Neuren doesn't need approval according to a given clause in the agreement, which is it? If Acadia has a problem with the undisclosed indications and they want to suddenly announce these as indications for themselves then Neuren really does need to run these by Acadia don't they?
Using specifically worded clauses to correct a poster doesn't make it correct in the wider picture. It is only correct at a certain point in the process...

Arguing semantics is a nonsense for my part, I won't be commenting further and I'd like to reiterate that I'm very grateful for Hottod's analyses and insights. She is a brilliant contributor to this site. I just felt this was contradictory: Acadia ultimately has final say in a dispute but no Neuren doesn't need approval for undisclosed indications even though Acadia can refuse and ultimately win out because...they have final say.