Flygen is a part of AWE research, in a similar way as the choice between soft and rigid wing AWE. Moreover AWE is not a religion, so "do not believe in the “holy grail” is not (more) an issue. By the same I refute qualifiers such as “positive” or “negative”, preferring “true” or “wrong” terms because “positive” or “negative” concepts imply an attitude of appreciation in regard to the concerned field which one should adhere to from the outset.
I am surprised that this topic is about the process of figuring out if AWE is commercially viable by mainly evoking Makani’s journey ending to a serious failure concerning reliability and efficiency, while their conditions of work were exceptional.
I mentioned a possible method to try to determine what is inherent (with low possibility of improvement) and what is circumstantial. Y-bridle tether connection might have caused a problem of roll leading to crashes and lower efficiency, but inherent causes can be envisaged, such like the weight in flight (see the curves with 10 m/s then 12 m/s wind speed, and also the good curve of a previous smaller wing).
After all telling that «Makani proved that flygen is not possible, because …» would be more positive that stating «Makani proved that AWE is not possible, because …», although not more true because if we take a perspective on global renewable energy financing, the halt in AWE funding can be quite positive. That could be the trend after Makani’s experience.