elder, I'm no mathematician or statistician, so I could be wrong, but first I'd need to know if your example above means a .08% better A1c from the baseline (of 7.5) or does it mean .08% better than the 6.9 final DB A1c. Your example isn't clear so I can't assume what you mean, but knowing what the .08% A1c is "better" than would be a good start.

Once that it known, I'd also need you to clarify if your 7.5 or 6.9 are represented as %'s or absolute values. Your example above doesn't clarify. In other words, I don't think it's as simple as subtracting .08 from 6.9 and getting a 6.82. Rather, if 6.9 is an absolute # and .08 is a % (which it appears it is), you may need to do conversions and find out how much .08% of 6.9 is and then subtract that number from 6.9 (assuming .08% is "better" than DB's final reduction and not .08 better than baseline). If the former, it would be, what, .552 and you'd subtract that from 6.9 and get 6.348?

Beats me. Why I'm attorney and not a math teacher. It appears you are a brilliant attorney and mathematician. I wasn't so lucky. I get paid to argue facts to law in a courtroom, not do math equations. My posts on MNKD gives analysis of the issues I see based upon my 20 year experience as a T1, my research of MNKD and my background in biochemistry. I have admitted before that I don't know stats and could be wrong on the numbers. I used single variable differential and integral calculus w/ chemistry, but otherwise tried to stay away from too many calculations. The effects of molecular and chemical processes is what intrigues me with science. The quantitative analysis of those effects is the necessary evil.

What's interesting is that even MNKD's own statisticians could get the .40% threshold question right in their 009 analysis. They use a methodology that the FDA outright rejected. They thought the upper level of 95% CI was .38. The FDA disagreed and said it was .401. Same thing happened in 175 w/ .5. v .4.