That's a relief to hear! Here's the command I use to load the file and the output that follows.

[dhcp58-238:~/Documents/SUMA_s03] etienne% suma -i_gii NewCarla_cortex.gii

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvSurface #1/1(Local Domain Parent), loading ...
Warning SUMA_Make_Edge_List_eng:
Min/Max number of edge hosting triangles: [1/4]
Warning SUMA_Make_Edge_List_eng:
You have edges that belong to more than two triangles.
Bad for analysis assuming surface is a 2-manifold.
SUMA_Engine: Starting to listen ...



The output from Brainstorm does not include a .spec file, but rather two .gii files and a .dat file. According to one of the designers of Brainstorm, one .gii file is the cortex surface and the other .gii file is a texture on this surface with the source values. I tried to attach the files in this post but I guess they are too large even when compressed.

The purpose of fussing with this is to compare the way SUMA and Brainstorm represent the sulci maps, because there is a distinct difference now despite the fact that both programs import from FreeSurfer-made surfaces. SUMA's is very accurate to the FreeSurfer display, and Brainstorm's is quite different, which we think is due to the way the surface is smoothed in their software. We were hoping to maybe get around this issue or at least diagnose the issue better by getting the Brainstorm surfaces into SUMA. Hope this helps give some context for the goal!