The table does have me thinking - but it's clear you know more about this than I. When I look at your table it provides a good starting point to see the data split based on XOMA's 0.3 hazard ratio assumption and see how the different splits occur with different hazard ratios. But while, XOMA set out thinking that 0.3 was the hazard ratio, the study probably had a different observed hazard ratio. I thought Rubin said the success was dependent on the 0.5 using the KM curve. If that is in fact the case, what time assignment will they give gevo patients that exceed the longest point of exacerbation but havent yet exacerbated? Is that group included in the calculation using an assumed value or are they excluded?