BioNexus Labs — Internal Quality Assurance
Internal Memo — NX-7 Phase III Batch Data Integrity Query
Ref: BNL/QA/2847/2025  |  Forensic copy — recovered from Dr. Reddy's laptop, 8 May 2025
BNL/QA/2847/2025 — Page 1 of 2
DATE1 May 2025
FROMDr. Anil Reddy, Lead Researcher (BNL-0101)
TOKavitha Nair (CEO) & Ravi Teja (CTO)
SUBJECTNX-7 Phase III — Batch 7B Data Reconciliation Request
STATUSINTERNAL — RESTRICTED CIRCULATION

Kavitha, Ravi —

This memo documents a statistical anomaly I have identified in the NX-7 Phase III dataset as submitted to DCGI on 24 April 2025. I am raising this formally and requesting a data reconciliation meeting within 48 hours, before the DCGI review board completes its assessment.

My concern relates specifically to Batch 7B (sample group BNL/NX7-7B/2847/P3, enrolled November–December 2024, Hyderabad and Chennai sites combined, n=191). I have compared the figures in our submitted DCGI filing against the raw outcome data in the NX-7 Phase III Clinical Data Repository (CDR access: NX7-CDR/LAB). The discrepancies are material.

Statistical Comparison — Batch 7B Submitted vs. CDR Raw

MetricCDR Raw (as of 31 Mar 2025)DCGI Submission (24 Apr 2025)
Enrolled subjects (Batch 7B)191191
Evaluable subjects182193 (9 subjects above enrollment)
Objective response rate (ORR)61.3% (n=112/182)74.2% (n=143/193)
Grade 3–4 adverse events18 cases (9.9% of evaluable)11 cases (5.7% of evaluable)
Treatment-related discontinuations148
Batch 7B classification in submissionFlagged as statistical outlier in CDR notes, 15 Feb 2025Included as primary data, no outlier notation

To be direct: the submission data includes 9 subjects not present in the CDR at the time of data cut (31 March 2025). Seven adverse event cases from the CDR are absent from the submission. The Batch 7B outlier notation I added to the CDR on 15 February — recommending exclusion pending re-analysis — has been removed in the version I can now access.

I am not in a position to submit a revised DCGI filing unilaterally, and I am not accusing anyone at this stage. I am requesting that the three of us meet to review the Batch 7B CDR history and the submission data side by side. If there is an explanation I am missing, I want to hear it. If there is not, we have a regulatory obligation to notify DCGI before the review board finalises approval.

I have requested this meeting twice verbally, most recently on 29 April. I am now formalising the request in writing under BNL's internal QA protocol (Policy QA-7.3.2: Mandatory escalation of material data discrepancy concerns). Please confirm a time by 3 May.

Handwritten annotation in margin (blue pen): "No response by 3 May. Sent reminder 4 May — ignored. DCGI approval announced 6 May. Taking this directly to DCGI Central Drugs Lab, New Delhi. — AR"
Second annotation below, different pen (black, heavier): "Spoke to P.R. today [undated]. She's seen the CDR. She agrees. Need her as a witness before I send."
BNL/QA/2847/2025 — End of memo
Forensic Copy — HFSL Hyderabad (BNL-W/2025/0508)
Original document recovered from Dr. Anil Reddy's Dell Latitude laptop (serial BNL-ASSET-0421), Lab Block C.
Forensic image: HFSL-DIGIT/2025/0508-AR-002  |  Hash: SHA256 verified