Our partners, page-416

No my friend, I haven't underestimated the accuracy at all.

In the "best of all worlds" a test will be:

• fast
• accurate
• require a small sample
• Affordable (not discussed here)

As I previously indicated, in the case of COVID19, I don't think sample size is an issue. Stick a swab down someone's nose and pull out enough goo to clog a thousand tests.

I also regard speed as an issue that Sona seem to have under control. A lateral flow test is heaps faster than PCR. (Believe me; I've done lots of PCRs.)

As for accuracy; the test should minimize false positives and false negatives. A false positive means (worst case scenario) that someone who does NOT have the virus spends 2 weeks in quarantine. (Actually they would be tested again inside that time so they may be let off early).
As you correctly point out; false negatives are the ones to avoid. They mean someone who has the virus may be allowed to go on their way while shedding virus to anyone in close proximity. IMO a false negative is most likely to occur when a person with a low viral load (perhaps just infected a day prior to the test) takes the test and it is below the level of sensitivity of the test.
We know from prior announcements that Anteobind reputedly increases the accuracy of lateral-flow tests. So one would think that, if Anteobind increases test sensitivity, then it would be included in the Sona lateral-flow test.
It may well be, but as a "sub-component" of their gold nano-rods. They may well be in a position to say "we're using our GNRs" but to not mention Anteo.

All I am sure of is that Anteo is NOT listed as a partner in their test development. Our contribution may be limited to sending them a 1 L bottle of Anteobind by DHL every week.

Really; I welcome clarification of this whole situation by the BOD. I think it has dragged on long enough and SH should be properly informed.
Same goes for the battery anodes. The longer it drags on, the more negative things look.
Ghosts of years gone by...