Trigger primary data analysis for CERPASS clinical trial
Not delivered by the deadline
AI-confirmed · human review in progress Independent AI checks agreed on primary SEC or regulator evidence. Records are now being reviewed by hand, starting with those our customers order.
- Announced
- 4 Nov 2021
- Due
- 31 Dec 2022
- Checked
- 1 Oct 2026
- Deadline
- Met
- Late
- Not met
- Today
What the company said
“the primary data trigger expected in late 2022”
What we found
Evidence strength A What the grades mean
The company delayed the primary data analysis trigger for the CERPASS trial beyond the late 2022 deadline, rescheduling the expected topline data announcement to Q3 2023.
-
A Replimune Group, Inc. 10-Q filed 2023-02-09
“Topline data from the CERPASS trial is now expected to be announced in Q3 2023, due primarily to the decision to trigger the primary analysis at 40 weeks from last patient in” ✓ confirmed on the page
Market reaction: the shares moved -11.9% against the S&P 500 over the three sessions around the disclosure (8 Feb 2023 to 13 Feb 2023). What this measures
Checked 1 Oct 2026.
Commitment lineage
Every time the company restated this commitment. The original is never changed, and the outcome is always measured against version 1.
- Deadline drift +181 days
- 2 versions
-
Version 1 · original · stated 4 Nov 2021
Deadline 31 Dec 2022 (“late 2022”) · wording expected
-
Version 2 · stated 4 Aug 2022
Deadline 30 Jun 2023 (“H1 2023”) · wording expected
“primary analysis data from this clinical trial is expected to be released in H1 2023.”
Commitment DNA
The structured record of this commitment. Fields the company did not state are left blank rather than guessed.
- Event type
- Clinical readout
- Indicative materiality
- Medium rules
- Action
- Trigger
- Deliverable
- Primary data analysis trigger for CERPASS trial
- Language
- Expected (“expects”, “plans”)
- In the company’s control
- High
- Specificity
- High
How this entry was checked
- Commitment recordedThe company's words were matched word for word against the filing.
- First checkAn AI model, Gemini (Google), read the company's later filings and recorded the outcome with a quoted passage.
- Second check: agreesA different AI model, Claude (Anthropic), re-read the evidence without being told the outcome and reached the same answer.
- Third check on a negative finding: agreesBecause a negative finding could harm a company if wrong, a stronger model re-read the evidence fully blind and reached the same answer.
Confirmed. This outcome counts towards the company's Kept Score. How verification works
Are you Replimune Group, Inc.? You can publish an official statement next to this entry, free. Add a statement.
Is something here wrong or out of date? Companies and readers can ask us to check it. Please bring a link to a public source.
Report an error in this entry Reference: KI-C-2021-REPL-002634 · Corrections policy