OK what happens now....., page-4

Using ur logic - it did not fail either or they would have said failed?

Not quite as simple as taking a Uni test IMO that either has right or wrong answers in pretty much black and white.

This testing had the issue of whether the data it spat out was primarily readable - in this case, Purdue couldn't get meaningful data to fit their test parameters so it becomes inconclusive - neither pass nor fail at this stage. The question is why?

We must remember that there is now 2 parts to this tech - corneal and iris. I would suggest that each component would have been tested independent of the other and then combined.

If say, Corneal passed, yet Iris failed (or vice versa) then main objective of a combined multimodal would be inconclusive would it not? Does not mean that as individual biometrics that they couldn't work but maybe combined does not give the readable data.

Remember it was also put forward that the Tech and the Algos behind it would be new - even the WBT website states these methods as "discoveries" - so, if Purdue has systems expecting everything to fit within a box and something new comes along that needs to be read or fit differently in said box then the method of testing may need to change?