There are two differences between the 90% reported originally and the 95% now. The first value was a lower bound, it was formulated a bit mushy as far as I reme

There are two differences between the 90% reported originally and the 95% now. The first value was a lower bound, it was formulated a bit mushy as far as I remember, but it almost certainly wasn't the same type of value as the one reported now. And the trial is now finished, the first value was from an interim analysis with fewer data points. So there is nothing unusual here at all.