Agreed. How far into the weeds does the science need to go to determine recency of use - Another Magic Question. My point is if lawmakers know spit is invasive and violates ones rights, why is it still the law in roughly 60% of the US, and pending law in Canada?
The answer is expediency.
We @ Cannabix likely have a superior product versus Hound or whomever. I'm not doubting the science. What I doubt is man's ability to broadly utilize the best of the best versus any of the rest. Therefore, the ground game and public perception can and will Trump facts.
In contrast, there is no barrier to define recency of use as it relates to disease diagnosis. It's simply Yes or No. The only Magic Question regarding disease diagnosis is percentage of accuracy. Does anyone know the accuracy of the Black|Box Mousetrap?
What about the accuracy of a THC Handheld Breathalyzer?
Maybe this link can shed more light on this mysterious subject:
If you scroll down to the bottom where the "References" are located, you will find tons of written research targeting your concern. The references include multiple materials by Dr. Marilyn Huestis, and even lists Dr. Olof Beck.
The perceived "competitions" patent application is 76 pages in length. I don't think any of the patent applications by Cannabix are more than 5 to 10 pages in depth? Maybe simplicity is the mother of all inventions? Time will tell, and time is the enemy.