diff --git a/code/nnv/examples/NN/medmnist/debugInconsistenciesNodulemnist.m b/code/nnv/examples/NN/medmnist/debugInconsistenciesNodulemnist.m
index f348d1aa7..226053000 100644
--- a/code/nnv/examples/NN/medmnist/debugInconsistenciesNodulemnist.m
+++ b/code/nnv/examples/NN/medmnist/debugInconsistenciesNodulemnist.m
@@ -51,6 +51,6 @@
 end
 
 % save results
-save("results/verification_multipleAttacks_nodulemnist3d_debug.mat", "results", "outputSets");
+save("results/verification_multipleAttacks_nodulemnist3d_debug.mat", "results", "outputSets", "-v7.3");
 
 
diff --git a/code/nnv/examples/NN/medmnist/process_debugNodule.m b/code/nnv/examples/NN/medmnist/process_debugNodule.m
index dbd14fff4..ff762faec 100644
--- a/code/nnv/examples/NN/medmnist/process_debugNodule.m
+++ b/code/nnv/examples/NN/medmnist/process_debugNodule.m
@@ -9,85 +9,25 @@
 outputSets = outputSets';
 
 % first discrepancy (5)
-R1 = outputSets(1,5); % 
+R1a = outputSets{1};
+R1 = R1a{5}{end};
 [lb1, ub1] = R1.getRanges;
-R2 = outputSets(2,5);
-[lb2, ub2] = R1.getRanges;
-R3 = outputSets(3,5);
-[lb3, ub3] = R1.getRanges;
+R2a = outputSets{2};
+R2 = R2a{5}{end};
+[lb2, ub2] = R2.getRanges;
+R3a = outputSets{3};
+R3 = R3a{5}{end};
+[lb3, ub3] = R3.getRanges;
 
-% So the ranges are the same, same results should be getting...
-% What is happening?
-
-% Nodulemnist is a binary classification problem
-% The bounds are clearly apart, so no unkown should be happening...
-% Are we representing the robustness halfspace incorrectly?
-
-% Verification property
-G = [1,-1]; g = 0;
-Hs = HalfSpace(G,g);
-
-res1 = verify_specification(R1, Hs);
-res2 = verify_specification(R2, Hs);
-res3 = verify_specification(R3, Hs);
-
-% bounds are the same, but the verification results are not...
-% why is there no intersections? Does the intersection method have a bug on
-% it?
+% The ranges are different, but the 3 bounds should be containing the other
+% 2... We are probably doing somethig wrong, either when defining the input
+% set, or something with the reachability (most likely the first...)
 
 % Let's visualize the output sets (exact)
-% figure;
-% Star.plot(R1,'r');
-% figure;
-% Star.plot(R2,'r');
-% figure;
-% Star.plot(R3,'r');
-
-% Are the predicate bounds incorrect? They show 254 and 255... 
-% This seems just wrong... Can we simply remove the predicate bounds in 
-% all cases? I don't think so...
-% Then we need to fix either the how the predicate bounds get computed, or
-% do not use them for certain operations such as plotting or computing
-% intersections/empty sets.
-
-% Remove predicate bounds
-R1.predicate_lb = [];
-R1.predicate_ub = [];
-R2.predicate_lb = [];
-R2.predicate_ub = [];
-R3.predicate_lb = [];
-R3.predicate_ub = [];
-
-% Check verification results now
-res11 = verify_specification(R1, Hs);
-res22 = verify_specification(R2, Hs);
-res33 = verify_specification(R3, Hs);
-
-% We get the same results, so I guess the predicate bounds do not affect
-% this verification result (intersection of Star sets)
-
-% The difference between R3 and the other 2 is that there is an extra
-% constraint. Is this messing things up?
-% Let's manually visualize the stars...
-
-% get centers
-c1 = R1.V(:,1);
-c2 = R2.V(:,1);
-c3 = R3.V(:,1);
-
-% get basis vectors
-V1 = R1.V(:,2:end);
-V2 = R2.V(:,2:end);
-V3 = R3.V(:,2:end);
-
-% get constraints
-C1 = R1.C;
-d1 = R1.d;
-C2 = R2.C;
-d2 = R2.d;
-C3 = R3.C;
-d3 = R3.d;
+figure;
+Star.plot(R1,'r');
+figure;
+Star.plot(R2,'r');
+figure;
+Star.plot(R3,'r');
 
-% can we get the bounds of the stars from here?
-R4 = Star(lb1,ub1);
-Star.plot(R4, 'r');