I think no matter what the company do now the market players are going to lob shiite all over them.
The first diamond hole (24WADD001) was present presented poorly, they cherry picked sections with XRF which over inflated copper results (the market is smarter in a bear and saw right through it). I believe they learnt from that lesson with the presentation of the second diamond hole (24WADD002) by not presenting XRF (which can be speculated widely) and instead, included a geo log of the best sections of the core. Did they run XRF on hole two, of course they did so they have a fair idea, but the blebs of chalcopyrite and more importantly bornite are an anomaly and would spike the results dramatically - likely another good reason not to present XRF results.
I think they've done the 'right' thing with presenting 24WADD002, a more balanced approach. I want to see visuals of the best sections but I also want a geo log of the hole which provides greater understanding without hype of what was intercepted.
I will make one observation, the photos were of poor quality and I couldn't make out the disseminations of copper sulphides, only the veinlets and blebs. That probably would be my only criticism of the 24WADD002 announcement.
In regards to the 'red rock' debate, you don't need hematite to have an IOCG system, discovery or mine (many examples in Australia and globally). However, hematite was observed throughout this hole especially in the first few hundred meters.
Also, one last observation - the lack of pyrite in this hole compared to hole 24WADD001 is very encouraging.
I think the assays will be better than the market is expecting, if the geo logs are accurate (that's my disclaimer for being wrong, we can only go off what's presented).
Possible assays (without Au):
69-224m = 155m @ 0.2-0.5% Cu
258-308m = 50m @ 0.7-1.3% Cu
541-634m = 93m @ 0.2-0.5% Cu
Averaged out for intercept: 565m @ 0.25% Cu +Au?
(20min delay)