If I knew that at least the blended data suggested that the minimum threshold would likely be achieved, why not give out blended figures with a caveat, just the same as in survival. What is suggested by PFS is that the blended figures indicate that they may be close to the minimum threshold(or even not) and they are hoping that adjudication confirms that at least the minimum threshold has been reached. If blended results suggest, as in the case of survival, that the blended results are promising, with the caveat that such Tx arm results will at least be confirmed(by adjudication) if not be better than blended results suggest, I would address that.
With NWBO, you just never know. Apologists for NWBO try to defend their silence by spinning it and the selective release of information regardless causes confusion. To me, invoking Occam's razor, the simple explanation for silence is that from the blended data, there is reason for concern and confoundment. Accordingly, adjudication will take place to clear it all up. If on the other hand, PFS blended was say 15 months, that would be quite positive with a caveat that adjudication, never the less, will be performed for confirmation purposes so that the results are undeniable. In such a case less confusion.
So, bottom-line, I would say that NWBO has some PFS concerns. The "foot prints" indicate it. Does not ipso facto mean they failed to achieve the end point. JMHO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
