I don't disagree in general. What I'm saying is that if what's dangerous is a head injury with a [purely fictional/illustrative] severity of 5 on a scale of 1-10, but this test detects only a diagnosable concussion at 8+, it would be a double-edged sword:

- Individuals with severe injuries (8+) would be detected and could not deny it. You'd rid sports of the trainer who asks how many fingers he's holding up, and the answer is always "two." This is a good thing.

- Individuals with significant injuries (5+) would not be detected and would continue playing, causing perhaps worse outcomes. These injuries are more common, and sports would build up to accept and embrace them, since evidence may take decades to gather that reducing diagnosable concussions is not enough.

The latter case could affect thousands/millions more people, and may in fact be the real metric we should be targeting, rather than the as-currently-defined diagnosable concussion.