There's no contradiction between the 10-Q and 10-Q/A
The two 10-Q filings stand side-by-side.
In the 10-Q the company discloses something that they were not, strictly, required to. In the 10-Q/A they make no reference to it.
The simple explanation for the 10-Q/A is that the licensee (Eyetalk365) pointed out that, under the terms of an NDA, REVO should not have disclosed their identity, as licensee.
But, simply taking something out of the 10-Q does not 'undo' it. If the statement in the 10-Q was true it remains true.
If the original reference to Eyetalk365 was an error in the 10-Q then REVO should specifically identify the error, and retract it. The retraction must be, unambiguous, and state, at least, that there has never been any form of licensing agreement with Eyetalk365. Until such a retraction is made it remains true, and on the record, that Eyetalk365 is the REVO licensee.
