Question: K2 Corporation, a subsidiary of Anthony Industries, marketed the "Dan Donnelly XTC," a snowboard without predrilled holes for bindings. Without such a pattern, purchasers could install their choice of any bindings by simply screwing them into a fiberglass retention panel in the snowboard's core. Hyjek purchased this model and was injured in March 1991 when his binding came loose from the snowboard, striking him inside his left ankle. In 1993, he sued Anthony Industries, claiming that the design was not reasonably safe and the system of threaded screws was a foreseeably inadequate and unsafe binding retention method. In 1992, K2 had begun to design a new system involving "throughcore inserts" molded into the snowboard. Fine threaded screws were then screwed into the inserts to hold the bindings in place. Hyjek sought to enter into evidence K2's subsequent change in design to support his claim for design defect. Should the judge allow the evidence into trial?