Some comments on the announcement, page-7

Holdonman,

You aren't applying your statistical knowledge correctly.

The reserve (tonnes and grade) isn't THE statistical gold ore population, it an an estimate of the actual population. It is a minor but highly significant factor that throws off nearly all your subsequent comments. Particularly the idea that outperformance ex-ante implies underperformance ex-post.

The outperformance of the grade (particularly) and tonnes implies the model used to estimate the orebody was overly conservative or had too much downward bias in extrapolation of data and application of statistical tools in the modelling.

This was obvious to me as soon as I heard the mine grade was outperforming the model particularly when:

1/ The previous model had a reserve grade of 3.4g/t
2/ The previous open pit had a recovered grade of 3.6g/t
3/ There was no fundamental reason cited when the reserve grade was changed from 3.4g/t to 2.8g/t

The fact they have applied 15% overcall when data suggests 25% is conservative but also reasonable.

As to statistical significance of the overcall, there have been a large number of blocks mined at a varying grades so the data is likely to be more than sufficient to support the update of the grade, particularly at a level not far off half the actual outperformance.

Honestly it would misleading for them to not have made this change given the experience - strange for you to argue anything else given your preference for truthful representation.