Ann: Change in substantial holding, page-13

Yeh grades are not just better than average, it's the best known IAC grades bar none anywhere as far as I know. Agreed, with the benefit of hindsight you don't pay $20m for a project where there are no metallurgical proof of IAC adsorption, those specific met results may have been new but there's more than likely other individual sample tests done that formed the basis for the original DD imho, alternatively say half of the results were in but half were pending is a possibility too, I.e. not enough to finalise the report as you say.

Looking at dates the bulk of shares could for instance have been from a year ago or something but none the less, transparency would have been a positive, without it a slight negative tinge.