I agree, the whole strategy is fundamentally up for debate now....

I agree, the whole strategy is fundamentally up for debate now. I think 1 of the following needs to happen;

Come out in full support of the existing strategy;
Stage 1, show us how it is profitable using revised and accurate assumptions including ramping up to nameplate
Stage 2, as above & actually commit to a time frame
Stage 3, Narrow down "2022" timeframe for PFS
Using hindsight I believe Stage 2 had been delayed as a result of Stage 1 underperforming, which is an indictment of Justin's communication that basically left shareholders blindsided. If that isn't the case, then communication has still been poor as there's still really no rationale or clarity around Stage 2 timeframes.

OR

Confirm what the market suspects, Stage 1 is losing money and will be for the foreseeable future (Not my opinion - I'm saying IF this is the case). Stage 2 is likely just going to be an accelerated loss of money on that basis, so combine Stage 2 & 3 on a shorter timeframe. This almost certainly means more debt / dilution than initially planned, but would work out better for shareholders than charging ahead with a loss making Stage 2.

Stage 3 may not be able to be accelerated much more anyway, so we could just be talking about deferral of Stage 2. Until Stage 1 is turning a profit I'd say that is prudent anyway (but should have been communicated this way).