I think that two of the key arguments in the SOR are...

I think that two of the key arguments in the SOR are contradictory:

The first can be summarised as the revenue earned to meet the milestones was just intentionally inflated by taking on work and subcontracting it all out (and lets face it, it very likely was, but if you incentivise management to increase revenue, one way or another revenue will be increased).

ASX is essentially saying this wasn't in the spirit of the agreement, fair enough argument.

But in the second argument the ASX is calling into questions if the work was completed on time, pointing to some very suspect completion of work certificates. This is also a fair enough argument, but you can only make one argument or the other. If you are making the second argument, then you are accepting that the revenue was legitimate.