After Sikorsky's FLRAA debacle (with their submission's lack of architectural detail as articulated by GAO, and the underwhelming performance of their SB>1 Defiant demonstrator) - why don't they concede that X2, whilst being a novel concept, is a dud in practical terms?
With X2, the marginal gain in top speed provided by the pusher prop and coaxial rotors, is insufficient to offset the detriments ... such as increased cost (to start with), together with increased weight, cubic-foot volume / displacement, complexity, and maintenance to flight hour ratio. Which shall likely lead to reduced reliability, operational tempo, and readiness rate.
Given the valid questions raised, about whether Raider-X shall realize a speed advantage of any significance over the Bell 360 Invictus - what's the point of Sikorsky continuing with the design?
With the delay in receipt of the GE T901, they've an opportunity (if they act fast) to start from scratch - and produce an entirely new FARA design.
Perhaps they aren't permitted to do so, by the FARA tender rules - given the Army selected them as one of the two finalists, based upon their originally submitted X2-centric design.