These transactions were all explained at the time - reasons...

These transactions were all explained at the time - reasons included building a new house and renegotiated remuneration package.

I don’t disagree with you though about likelihood of transaction this year. I personally think that is unlikely.

However, given that they were able, using the new test rig, to bleed a tiny bit of function out of PL3 (which had previously been labelled as entirely non-functional) I am cautiously optimistic that PL4 will not be a complete failure (can debate back and forth whether any of them are truly failures or are just the next stepping stone towards an eventual success, but that’s not the point of my post).

My reasoning being that they should hopefully be able to at least get as much function out of it as they eventually managed with PL3 (fingers crossed anyway) thereby allowing the initial announcement to be be framed as ‘ some functionality confirmed, further testing being performed‘ rather than ‘ooopsie, it doesn’t work at all’

might give enough of a price uptick for some of us to de-risk, even if the subsequent announcement after further testing were to say ‘functionality very limited, need to try a different etch yet again’

the other potential thing that they could release is the outcomes of the presumed further testing of PL3. I had hoped for a glimmer of something in the quarterly, but nada since the ‘renewed technical progress update’ on 27/02

cheers