Reference article above and TWRA employee claim of negligence of rapidly testing without second "closer look" test to verify. IMO, a very easy way to get a read on whether the plaintiff's claim is valid for the epicenter of CWD (SE Fayette/SW Hardeman) is to look at prevalence rate December 2018 - 2020 (before the point in time he claimed Agency started to stray away from 2 part testing) and compare the prevalence rate to same area (epicenter of CWD) for the time period he claims The Agency was NOT doing due diligence and started using other labs. Generally speaking, the Agency has a baseline (year in a half of two part CWD testing that satisfies the plaintiff) to compare the period of record he claims TWRA cut corners and is at fault (2021 - current). The prevalence rate should be somewhat similar, if nothing is awry. Essentially comparing the two periods of record with two different testing procedures (per the plaintiff), to see if they align (akin to calibrating a scientific model). Now for the counties on the fringes of Unit CWD that have 1-10 positives over a few years, the baseline data and period of record is not there to perform the same analysis. On a different but similar note, I have to question the handling of samples and the logistics of the process. I have been around long enough to know hunters/people/workers can be sloppy and careless at times, oftentimes leading to some things getting mixed up here and there that could lead to a misinformed decision.