Take a minute to consider 'delayed start analysis', and that it just analyzes separation. Now consider what you said about Lecanemab's delayed group "probably caught up". If true, that means that it matched the early group's slowing rate of decline. This is not a bad thing, but a good thing. It would also be a good thing for 2-73.
What Missling did was try to propose a silver lining to not catching up. "It means it's possibly better to start sooner than later." And that is a plausible hypothesis. But don't confuse that with being an absolute good. Since we haven't been shown the chart, which would show the trajectories, we don't know what the delayed group didn't catch up to. For that you need a chart, or at least the changes from baseline. If the early group's extended trajectory didn't keep trend to the first 48 weeks, that's not good, and the delayed group trajectory is therefore even worse. Hence the need for charts. The company didn't provide what is needed to assess how the groups actually did from baselines. We don't know the trajectories (aka slopes). Btw, read what the ADL and Cog13 outcome measures are on the clinicaltrial site. (Spoiler alert: they have the phrase "changes from baseline" in them.)
Folks are spinning market conspiracies. Their time would be much better spent understanding what to look for in trial results. Biotech, not fantasies and paranoia.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
