Direct comparison:HoleInterval (m)Grade (g/t)Key High-Grade...

Direct comparison:

	Hole	Interval (m)	Grade (g/t)	Key High-Grade Zones	Comments
1	Hole 1 (25ENDD001)	170m @ 1.75g/t Au	18.3m @ 9.95g/t Au (from 172.9m)	Very strong. Thick and high-grade at depth.
2	Hole 2 (25ENDD002)	172.9m @ 2.07g/t Au	25m @ 5.23g/t Au (from 194m), incl. 5m @ 11.09g/t Au	Even better than Hole 1. Higher average grade.
3	Hole 3 (25ENDD003)	102m @ 1.10g/t Au	9.7m @ 3.57g/t Au (from 252.3m)	Good, but lower overall grade and width compared to Holes 1 & 2.

Summary:

•Hole 3 is good — it confirms the continuity of gold mineralisation across the system.

•BUT, Hole 1 and Hole 2 are better:

•They are longer (170m+ vs 102m).

•They have higher grades (1.75–2.07g/t vs 1.10g/t).

•They show thicker, richer high-grade cores (9–25m @ 5–10g/t vs 9.7m @ 3.57g/t).

•Hole 3 still shows visible gold and has a decent high-grade core (9.7m @ 3.57g/t) — just not as thick or as rich as Holes 1 and 2.

Important Context:

•Hole 3 was drilled further away from the granite-sediment contact, targeting the broader structural corridor — not right inside the main high-grade zone.

•The fact that it still hit 100m+ of mineralisation is very positive for the overall system size.

•Screen Fire Assay upgrades (still pending) could boost Hole 3’s reported grades by +23–35%, but even with upgrades, it would likely still be a bit below Hole 1 and Hole 2 in strength.

Bottom Line:

•Hole 1 > Hole 2 > Hole 3 in terms of strength.

•But Hole 3 still supports a growing and large gold system — it’s a good result, just not as flashy as the first two holes.