> The most reasonable answer to why he broke the contract was because he had > already milked dry the bogus respectability it brought him for free, so why > pay for it? There's also the possibility that it won't actually work in > actual independent tests. >
I agree that this is a plausible explanation. But the degrees of freedom are so large here and the actual data so sparse, that you could use lateral thinking to generate 200 other theories for why he broke the contract as well. If you have to make a business decision, then fine, run with this explanation and decide that you would in no wise invest. But if you're free to sit back and watch developments unfold, as we all are right now, I don't see a convincing reason to latch onto this explanation before the evidence demands it.
