You don't see how this can be true and yet they still provide statistical analysis?
You don't see that when the data is numerical this is, by definition, a statistical exercise?
The problem is that the KEM hierarchical clustering method as used for AVXL is just a way to organize data process to predict links between baseline data and efficacy outcomes. This use of a sample of numerical data to make general predictions of relations across the whole set is in itself is a statistical process
However, there is more to the Ariana process. Next they will only allow that those relationships to be called "predictors" after they test the validity of those relationships using (gasp) standard statistical measures (P<0.05 based on Fisher exact tests)
Finally, they express efficacy relative to placebo in odds ratio...another standard statistical measure.
Didn't see any confidence intervals but did see p-values and its alpha which imply null and hypothesis. There were % signs aplenty.
So after all the wasted words above you could just say finding correlations within numerical data that can be applied to the whole group is a statistical exercise (analysis). How they get to the correlations doesn't change that fact.
Finally, no you can't hide behind the fact that KEM is rule based or that SOMETIMES certain ASPECTS of Ariana's analysis falls outside of or on the margin of statistics. Nor can you blame them for trying to distinguish their product in the market by emphasizing the non-statistical elements. Clearly their comprehensive analysis, when assessing drug effects as is the case with AVXL, is a statistical analysis.