$4.4m raised in total, not $7.6m., page-17

"The first placement was oversubscribed, announced on 17th August, to raise 3.4m.
This second placement has committements for approx for 4.2m".

Yes, the 'second'...what?
The second outright cap raising?
Or, the second tranche of the first and only actual cap raising - which got commitments for $4.2 mill in total?

Or a completely second $4.2 mill total Augusta figure
ON TOP OF the first 3.4 mill? In other words
$3.4 + $4.2 = $7.6 ?
Why not write that then?

I read the above quote as completely ambiguous and it could have been completely clear.

It could have said simply:

"The $4.4 million cap raising,
which was recently conditionally completed,
is in addition to the $3.4 million that was previously conditionally completed in August,
bringing the total cap raising for both months combined to equal 7.6 mill" FULL STOP
(And i gave that some overkill, thats how many ways they could have stated it).

Look at the title of the Sept announcement and then the other from August and tell me if the Sept one stipulates that it is an entirely different placement?
Because in honesty, i don't read it that way at all and i would love for the company to come out with "a total of $7.6 Million was raised between August and September via share issue and options" - for all your sakes.

Why haven't they put a total into the ASX?
Do they know the answer, or is it not favourable to put a total in print?
I am just a bit sus on this last announcement, so until i know, i will ask for others to notice the ambiguity.
If it wasn't for the ambiguity, my diligence wouldn't be locked on it being a convoluted announcement, which hoped to make the lesser figure of $4.2 mill seem more grand than it was, via confusion.

In my mind, the top statement is 50/50 either way and it shouldn't be and didn't need to be.

L