RE:RE:FeelingId have to disagree with you. The reason being is because should the data been questionable to the extent of rejection then we would have seen that already. You almost need to look at the longer wait as a good thing when it comes to decisions being made and I will explain why. Think of it like a criminal case and jury having to come up with a verdict. If you ask any defence lawyer, they will tell you that the longer the jury takes to deliberate, the more likely it means they are looking into it with more detail and thus giving you a chance. On the other hand, if the jury comes back quick with a response, it means they already have the majority of their mind made up after hearing the details in court and just need to follow producure of "deliberating" before they can submit their verdict. A same scenario is being played out here. The jury (HC) is reviewing the data (evidence of the case), it seems like there is potential to grant the defendent (SONA) a good deal but they need to be sure before they give their verdict (aprroval) because they dont want any backlash from the public (failure of product when out in the market) due to thier decision.
Thats my two cents, you dont have to agree. But, typically speaking the fact that they keep changing the status during its review process is an indication that HC is considering it but needs to be sure of specific elements (could be data or manufacturing capacity).
Give this bad boy a thums up if you agree.