I asked your question number 1 in person at the GC investor...

I asked your question number 1 in person at the GC investor briefing, or something very similar - it was along the lines of “presumably the chance of success of PL5 is reasonably high given it is at 60nm like PL4 was, whereas presumably the likelihood of success of PL6 as the first attempt at 20nm is much lower. Should PL6 be unsuccessful do you feel that the tech can be commercialised at 60nm as a back up option?”

The answer given was to not actually answer the question.

So I can’t enlighten you I’m afraid. @Cr223 is right, none of us really know. If we did, and if the answer was yes, you’d have to assume the price would be sitting a lot higher than it is.

There has been so little communication to shareholders (which was, to be fair, flagged by Jim Dorrian when the imec agreement was first entered into) that genuinely no one knows. It is only after the fact that we learn anything about each given platform lot and then we don’t hear anything meaningful until the next set of results. Essentially a 12 month cycle.

Is PL5 aiming to improve/optimise performance compared to PL5? Or is it purely to test different conditions in order to increase chance of PL6 success?
we just don’t know. Previous announcements suggested the former, the more recent announcement perhaps suggests the latter.
If it is the latter, then how is success going to be defined? And will they be able to persuade the market that it was even a success?

Who knows.

the only thing I do know is that every time this stock has crashed it has recovered and continued.
as long as they can raise capital then this cycle will presumably continue, for now at least.