Thanks. So there it is, in black and white, just as I suspected. If you assume that the viral genome sequences released by Chinese researchers after the outbreak were never manipulated, you conveniently find plausible templates for virtually every part of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Immediately with the first SARS-CoV-2 genome, we got convinient RaTG13: divergent enough to not be the ancestor, but similar enough to indicate a natural origin. And we got a fully sequenced genome and receptor binding analysis within days after the first SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced. Then take the highly suspicious RBD, which differs substantially from that of RaTG13 at exactly the part they planned to manipulate in DEFUSE. Just as Holmes and colleagues were struggling to explain its origin, a 99% similar RBD conveniently appeared in a Malayan pangolin coronavirus. Later, anidentical RBD was identified in a bat coronavirus from Laos, roughly a thousand kilometers away. What a coincidence. If you take all these sequences at face value, you can construct an apparently plausible natural recombination scenario involving viruses from different hosts and geographically distant locations. But the entire argument rests on one critical assumption: that all these sequences are authentic and have not been manipulated. And because genetic engineering can involve only subtle sequence modifications, such manipulation would not necessarily be obvious. But the attempted cover-up left a much more revealing fingerprint. The WIV or CCP wanted to make RaTG13 appear more divergent from SARS-CoV-2, ensuring that it could not be considered a plausible direct ancestor. They could not just withold the sequence, as they had already deposited a part of the genome on NIH servers before the pandemic. In doing so, whoever introduced these additional mutations may inadvertently have created an extraordinary statistical anomaly. Someone added an enormous excess of mutations to these restriction sites, even as many as four substitutions within a single six-nucleotide restriction site. That is most of the signal we identified in our endonuclease fingerprint preprint. But we interpreted its origin incorrectly. We assumed that the unusual concentration of synonymous mutations around restriction sites reflected the deliberate optimization of SARS-CoV-2 for a hierarchical reverse-genetics assembly system, which enables a DEFUSE-like project and requires those sites to remain functional in the final construct. Your analysis now proves that a substantial proportion of these differences were introduced into RaTG13 instead. According to your calculations, the probability of the observed pattern arising naturally is below 0.00001%, potentially around 100-fold lower, your numerical output lacks sufficient precision to establish that. If your calculations are correct, this proves that RaTG13 was indeed manipulated to obscure its relationship with SARS-CoV-2. Which completely undermines the credibility other coronavirus genomes released by Chinese institutions after the outbreak, like RmYN02, RpYN06, and whatever. Which also undermines your analysis on SARS-CoV-2. What makes your analysis particularly compelling is that you were clearly trying to steelman the zoonotic-origin hypothesis, not undermine it. I don't know whether your own calculations will ultimately convince you that the published RaTG13 sequence was manipulated, and what that really means. I have grown up in a nation in which 99% ignored evidence of a terrible, soul-crushing truth. But IMO you should be proud of this analysis. You have identified an exceptionally clean, quantitative way to expose a deception that has fooled the world for years. 0.000000 This tells us everything we need to know. And yet it tells us nothing about whether a world so driven by emotion, bias, and corruption will learn anything from this terrible mistake.