e.g. "finasteride grows X hairs per cm^2 in macaques, but Y in humans"
e.g. can we use it to estimate the % of hair loss in macaques that has non-androgenic causes and assume it won't translate to humans?
It's pretty much 1:1. I don't know where you got this idea that Androgenetic Alopecia is so different in macaques, but it's not supported by the literature. I already did the math in this post. We can estimate from the aforementioned study that finasteride increased terminal hair counts by up to 12.8/cm² in stumptailed macaques after 6 months versus 113/cm² for HMI-115. Per the following study finasteride increased hair counts in humans by 77 hairs in a 1 inch circle at 6 months. That's 15.1/cm², so slightly more than in the macaque study. Probably dead even because for this conversion I only calculated the maximum number of terminal hairs from the hair weight. It is likely a combination of terminal hairs and vellus hairs, which would likely mean finasteride increased terminal hair count in macaques by <10/cm², but increased total hair count by appx 15/cm², so pretty much exactly the same as in humans.
For an apples to apples comparison without any conversions, finasteride increased hair weight in humans by a net 25.6% compared to net 23% in macaques. It's not a guarantee, but based on the available evidence it is likely that HMI-115 will have approximately the same efficacy for Androgenetic Alopecia in humans that it does in macaques.