It’s not so much about wether the contract was signed or not, but about interpretation about what it means, what the agreement covers. Hyperion want it to mean *a lot* more (and different things) than their counterpart ever intended when signing the contract, which is a fact already established in another filed document, while *this* expert testimony speak volumes about what the agreement factually *can* mean, and more importantly, what it *can not* mean. And the conclusion is not drawn from one point but from many points together, and it’s not about version numbers either. Hyperion wants it to be about apples, but the basis in the agreement for their reasoning about this is a confused (and erroneous!) stipulation about oranges. This is what the testimony sets straight.