Ann: Ceasing to be a substantial holder, page-95

no. evident means "there is evidence" disclosure regulations state that market sensitive information must be disclosed continuously. this company has made it very clear that retention is a key differentiator. therefore any and all information regarding retention is "market sensitive" for the purposes of disclosure obligations. you know for a fact they absolutely have retention data. the fact they have refused to disclose it by conveniently declaring that it wasn't in the scope of testing is a manipulative tactic and it is THEM that are twisting things.

its abundantly clear that they've publicly stated

1. retention is a key differentiator
2. retention is "evident"

and we are expected to believe that they just went "oh lets not test retention" despite having a fully functional memory array?

they need to either retract their statement on retention and let the market understand that there is no useful retention on this device or they need to provide evidence of their claim.

Come on man, you're clearly a very intelligent and competent engineer, do you seriously, genuinely think that after they've gone all this way with trying to build "semi/non-volatile" memory storage tech and finally get the a fully functional lot, that they'd then just decide to not test the single most important metric?

you know as well as i do that they tested it, didn't like the results and decided the "la la la i cant hear you" approach was better than publishing what they had.

if they had liked it, they would have (As they have repeatedly previously done ) published a disclosure along the lines of:

"the company is pleased to announce initial retention metrics on platform lot samples in the range of x-x. these are initial results and further study is required, but these results demonstrate that this technology is a viable path to persistent memory."

you KNOW that's what they would have done, they havn't done it, and that's a pretty clear indication that retention is bullshit and they're using statistical confidence as a shield.

they need to either release the information they have, or retract their statement.
you cant say something is "Demonstrated persistent memory with variable and tuneable retention" and then not provide ANY detail WHATSOEVER.

if this was mining they'd be saying "our JORC is gunna be great, but we're not ready to do one yet"

all im asking is that they adhere to asx listing rules and actually disclose what they have, or that they retract any statements that are in effect misleading due to their not as you said done the work to "generate a set of numbers that meet industry reporting requirements"

cant have it both ways. either provide the data with appropriate caveats to support the claim or retract the claim.