"At a minimum, Veyonda® is expected to lead to better DIRECT...

"At a minimum, Veyonda® is expected to lead to better DIRECT responses to radiotherapy by functioning as a radio-enhancer" 2018 AGM

"The best expected outcome would be an improved DIRECT response, plus an ABSCOPAL response driven by its i-o drug properties" 2018AGM

After consider the above AGM quotes, what is amazing about your analysis is the leap of faith you have taken to insist, without a shred of evidence that the best expected outcome has occurred in your words "that significant abscopal responses have occurred" and yet the minimum expectation on the primary tumor has not occurred. To be clear in GK own words.....

"In this case we will be using a low dose of radiation that would not be expected to deliver anything more than partial shrinkage. We are expecting complete remission of those exposed tumours. If this is all we achieve, then we will have achieved something highly significant and highly relevant in the field of cancer management."

Partial shrinkage is what is expected just from palliative radiotherapy alone. GK told us so

So the data showed nothing more in the radiated tumors other than what was expected anyhow from palliative care radiation ie a partial shrinkage, and yet you would have as believe in the absence of commons sense and solid evidence that the secondary measure were significant. Hallelujah.... the absocal response was there after all even if the minimum outcomes were not meet and all we have to do is join the dots and believe in the surrogate evidence over against the primary evidence.

The ASX ann even contradicts your analysis.
"Apart from pain relief in 2 patients in the 400 mg cohort, this dose did not appear to have any significant anti-cancer effect in this small number of patients."
400mg cohort had paid relieve success and yet was considered not to have any significant anticancer effect. Where did the pain relief come from then..... palliative radiotherapy. The gold standard for pain relief according the BMJ march 2018.

In a nutshell. It defies logic that a significant secondary abscopal effects were present when the primary tumour results were little more than what could be expected just with palliative radiotherapy by itself. Sorry but your smoke and mirror analysis is just that. By the way what happened to patients 6 ,8 and 10 all on 800mg and 1200mg . And while I am at it, the four patient all on 400mg achieved SD and none of them died, where patients 6,8, and 10 on the higher dosage died and along patient 5 as well on the higher dosage went to show PD patient 13 just scraping into the SD range.
My point is simple the results are all over the shop. And the blue patients ironically had better OS than the red patients who started latter.

Your claim of a "significant abscopal effect" is simple a fabrication of hope and wishful thinking. And the fact the company has made no mention of the word proves the point.