Magnemasks Launch in Hong Kong, page-200

The wording in the report accompanying the 4C  was as follows:

"Key points of the OBJ’s Licensee relationship and activities include:

 The 40 products required to be developed under the existing licensing agreement for the second technology have been delivered for initial consumer efficacy testing. This fulfils the first important phase of the program and enables consumer feedback to define the next stage, including the development of final products and software.

 The detailed licensing agreement has been finalised and is awaiting execution, which OBJ understands is passing through the various approvals process. This new license will see the first application of the OBJ electronic micro magnetic technology be commercialised in a manner that will enable a broader range of distribution pathways to be deployed.

 Discussions continue to take place with the Singapore-based Product Accelerator regarding the development and distribution of products containing the second technology.

 An Addendum is being negotiated that confines the areas of OBJ’s Licensee’s exclusivity to OBJ’s microarray technology to a narrower range of skin care applications. The sectors previously considered exclusive included colour cosmetics, hair care and shaving, have now been released back to OBJ, enabling OBJ to offer products to the market containing microarray technology in these sectors.

One would assume that the meaning of the word "products" is the same in every case.

The references to "products containing the second technology", and

"enabling OBJ to offer products to the market containing microarray technology in these sectors.", and

"a broader range of distribution pathways to be deployed." all seem to imply distinctly separate applications of the company's technology.

In previous presentations, e.g. May 2017, the word "product" has been used to mean a distinctly separate use of OBJ technology, so it never occurred to me that anyone would read that reference to "40 products required to be developed" as merely 40 samples of the one product line.

What puzzled me about that part of the 4C was that our understanding of the second technology is that it was "personalisation" using an app. Therefore I was surprised to read that personalisation could extend to the use of 40 different P&G products.

If that is what was meant then OBJ is on the point of achieving something.  Perhaps the second technology means something different from our assumptions.

So, in order to clear this up, further questions for the Board are certainly justified.