What exactly are we discussing? No apology necessary. Your posts speak for themselves. I suggest it isn't a focused discussion and as I posted, contains easily refuted data.
This post is similarly unfocused/confusing given your reference to my bringing up Agilyx was exactly responding to your explanation:
Naysayers are constantly posting partial information on all sorts of P2O processors. Find an instance where a new company that provides P2O was introduced by longs. We end up responding to these posts because the information shown has never been balanced.
Agilyx is the closest to compare given their stage of "production" as well as available data, but the comparison post you are referring to was actually attempting to refute another poster's miss-comparison.
Our discussion ended here: #msg-58236487 You didn't get back with more, but decided to respond to someone else's visual DD here: #msg-58417227 to which I attempted to reengage given you were attempting to post yet another faulty "comparison"
Different than voluntarily out-of-the-blue posting on Agilyx-- you see the difference now perhaps?
In any case, your overall data regarding Agilyx as it compares to P2O is still wrong. Which detail would you like to focus that may perhaps be right?