RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:FCCI doubt third parties labs will certify these numbers because they have a product that has no comparable in the market. FCC testing is easy because it’s a bunch of well written rules they need to conform to but in the case of PAT there’s nothing. At best they could do a comparative study with a metal detector to see if they miss some device with metal but the strength of what PAT is proposing is that it will ignore common objects with metal like cells, belt buckles and will identify the weapon carried with a great level of confidence. The important thing for them is to be sure that if the system can’t match a metal pattern to the object scanned that they will still flag this person as suspect. The other thing is to be sure that the metal objects ignored is working good to avoid discarding a valid threat.
I’m pretty sure that the casino would have love to have a 93% chance of intercepting the shooter. It’s all about adding another layer of security. The fact that it is covert and can be integrated with surveillance systems is a big plus.
imo what will act as validation is when a company like Siemens will be willing to integrate PAT product to their portfolio.