Sell down, page-38

You are relying solely on statements under caveat - including that 'due diligence' means as much for the shareholder as it does the parties privy to detail.
That is my 'evidence'. You imply that such statements are "true" and require no calibration.
That is quite substantive. I used crass terminology to cut through what I perceive as your dogma and I apologise if you are offended, but by the same token I find your past style and demeanor offensive.
No external party can answer such questions to a level of any certainty.
therefore, whilst I am prepared to consider any source of 'research', whether we like it or not this is a highly probabilistic endeavour.
that makes your request to answer questions I want answered futile and merely theatrical....unless...
The biggest unknowns of influence, in my view, are able to be answered with certainty:

What does the capital cover in terms of product and processing method?
Is it APT or concentrate produced, and if so, how ?
if it is con then what grade, and what is the likely revenue in todays money?
What are the terms of finance and offtake if indeed that is imminent?
Do we have bankable feasibility or is it just a take on trust thumbsuck ?
What has changed in regard to managements past inability to deliver ?

I put it to you that if these could be answered with a higher degree of certainty, and pointed towards a robust venture,
demand for shares and options for finance would increase substantially.
Merely relying on low certainty headlines under caveat is not really answering these things and this is why you are mostly left talking to yourself or needing to bash up the odd holders who are becoming entitledly impatient.