I see, then I guess more accurately the page doesnt fall prey to the misconception as much as accidentally perpetuates it. Maybe it would be a good idea to clar

I see, then I guess more accurately the page doesnt fall prey to the misconception as much as accidentally perpetuates it. Maybe it would be a good idea to clarify using the tenses of the verbs and the wording that this is about the co considerations for the future pricing of the drug for a decision made before investment, and that the actual price of the drug will be dictated by supply/demand curves? If the model is presented as an investment go/no go calculator rather than price calculator, then that could make a lot of sense, and from that perspective it's a really cool model, I love how comprehensive it is! One nitpick, breakeven price and the word "breakeven" often refers to accounting profit, it might help to clarify that this is the price where you hit NPV>0, and maybe include the details of what the post patent cliff market size assumptions were (although that probably contributes very little given a 20% discount rate). It really is quite thorough!