"I believe management purposely designed the study with an unusually high number of secondary endpoints. They wanted to be as comprehensive as possible."
I agree. If you want to hit a target, any target, draw lots of them and hope you hit at least one of them.
That way you can eliminate chance and expect to hit one target at random.
But people often forget that most informed commentators (and more importantly most all regulators) believe that if a study fails its primary endpoint, the secondary endpoints by definition are not valid for analysis.
Potentially useful pointers for future research, but not valid for analysis statistically:
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
