The one false positive was determined negative by amnio however amnio is not 100% accurate. We won't know for sure until the baby is born.
Shorts should prepare themselves for the possibility that the positive predictive value is 100% after all. What leads me to think this is the fact that the positive RNA test was also confirmed as positive by the new and more accurate DNA test using methylation markers.
Not saying it's going to happen but it's a possibility. We'll know when the baby is born.
I don't think the 1 "false" positive is the primary issue here. As some are aware, 1) we won't know till the kid is born and, more importantly, 1 false positive is not a big deal given the sample size and the fact that there were zero false negatives.
However, the REAL issue here I think was the relatively large # of no-calls. That is a real limitation on this particular test. No question about that - and the fact that they screwed-up that data made it much worse.
Again - the false positive is a non-issue. The no-calls is somewhat major. Ergo the rational decline in valuation.