I do know what you mean in general terms I think, in that it...

I do know what you mean in general terms I think, in that it seems a company should divulge all results good or bad. The reality for me though is as far as I am aware very few companies release the bad news unless absolutely forced to.

My best example is tis tissue therapies who I held. They hit as far as phase 2 trial before realising product was no better than placebo. Surely they must have known that. Surely some earlier data they never revealed might have given an indication. But no and I lost a lot.
PYC another I still hold went through 4 or 5 major collaborations with big pharma in earlier stages years ago. None were announced as finished or failures until well after the fact. It seemed unethical that in some cases they knew for 6 months a deal had ended but chose not to update the market.

The main reason I invested In Rce was because of one of those failed collaborations where pyc would use their cell penetrating peptides to get into bacteria cells to combat hospital grade infections. They failed after 3 years of trying. Probably told you all this before.
Anyway all I can say is every biotec I have followed will give out the good news or spin the bad news so it is unrecognisable. Part of the interest in investing is trying to figure from news releases if it is too good to be true. I still say Rce may be too good to be true, I am as frustrated as any that we are still waiting for official in human trial results but no reward without risk. I'm happy with the risk at the moment.