At issue is that there is now new evidence. It should be obvious that conclusions reached in its absence do not incorporate any evaluation of the new evidence.
The conclusion might be strengthened, unaffected, weaker, or even reversed. That is the point. There is no value in new evidence other than that it might make a difference. What is difficult about this?
The conclusion might be strengthened, unaffected, weaker, or even reversed. That is the point. There is no value in new evidence other than that it might make a difference. What is difficult about this?