I'm just suggesting that one reason for the holdup may be the poling issue and the need to do far more testing. If 3,000 hours was more than enough then is 5,000 any more significant than 3,000? If not, then why tout it? Instead why didn't they come out and categorically say after the first 3,000 hours that there is no longer a reliability concern?
I suspect it's because there are ongoing issues that they are continuing to test, test, test to make sure everything works right, which on the one hand begs the question - how much more testing is needed before it is declared viable?, and on the other hand adds a layer of risk that they aren't talking about that it has problems that can stop the progress cold - requiring more R&D with a then uncertain time to resolution, similar to 13 years ago when finally Mr Marcelli had to admit to shareholders that they were continuing to work on hurdles...which we find out years later (via former employees interviewed by Kerrisdale) were serious.
EDIT: Well LWLG_Believer seeing your post we are saying much the same things aren't we? You are willing to trust Dr Lebby's timelines and belief that by a certain time things will be ironclad -- I'm not so willing because there is a chance even Dr Lebby is not able to predict how things go..especially if the poling issue is 99% there but not yet 'iron clad'.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
