I think you've hit on the problem of "questions of veracity". They can PR all they want. It is unknowable, patently absurd, and is just fodder for the ignorant.
It will be disclosed at a scientific conference as they have been saying for months.
No, better than that. I interpret it as enabling the company to hit consecutive bull's eyes in trials. This will lower cost and duration. I expect that there will be positive results (doesn't take much to beat BP's record) for those out of the bulls eye but homing in on that bulls eye will make trials less expensive and shorter in duration.
They will PR it offically - after accepted by FDA with substantial clinical justification.