Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty
by topaz0 on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @02:25AM
(#29792293)
I think "reverse engineering" in the gp was just an ill-considered choice of word. What they are describing doesn't really have anything to do with reverse engineering -- it's just using the devices in a way that will not produce the desired reliability of results. The fact that their methods differed from what the manufacturer recommends would not be a problem if they could prove that the false positive/false negative rates were up to the relevant standards.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
> The fact that their methods differed from what the manufacturer recommends would not be a problem if they could prove that the false positive/false negative rates were up to the relevant standards.
Well, better than the relevant standards. Otherwise all the "reverse engineering" -- i.e, tampering -- is fucking meaningless.
It's meaningless if nothing is better about how you're doing it. Presumably in this case the thing they wanted to improve was the amount of sample you need to use, not the false positive/negative rates.