Wow, that is so rampy, and grossly misleading. That is a ONE...

Wow, that is so rampy, and grossly misleading. That is a ONE PAGE website. Nota timeline or $ value to be seen.
Can you tell me: Answer each question sepcifically if it is TRANSPARENT as you say.

1) What are the inputs from each party? i.e. what does each party provide toward this partnership e.g examples are: each party puts in $x and hires staff/equipment/location as a separate business unit; or one party provides money and equipment other provides personnel, or ....

2) What performance terms need to be met by A3D for it to turn from a "non-binding" to an actual agreement with terms?

3) What are the timelines for the "agreement"? When does it commence? What action stages does it contain? When does it Expire?

4) What are the $ quantifiable terms? That is what are the inpt amounts in cash or in kind? What will be the revenue sharing from this?

None of these questions are answered, or probably even answerable; as I believe there will be no commitment (this one is stated as NON BINDING in the ann) until A3D reaches certain milestones.

The only quantifiable aspects in this are:
a) A $100,000 in-king commitment from CSIRO for labour (you know how much time $100,000 gets you from CSIRO scientists Melua. A couple of weeks worth of consulting by a team)
b) That in many communiques (e.g. job postings, reports), A3D lists the items as separate terms as though they are different agreements (Advisian, Worley, CSIRO) when in fact they are the same one, fake news?

Continual harping on the transparency of A3D carries the credibility of claiming they will take a "significant share of the $trillion manufacturing industry" or "...expect sales of 30 SFPs a month" (by around June of this year)

You would have a lot more credibility if you shared open and complete information that you have rather than ramping stuff like this, as transparent. I respected the input more, (but not much more) when you hid behind the "Commercial In Confidence" defence.