Certainly there is a need for management for a clarifying...

Certainly there is a need for management for a clarifying explanation. The thing that sticks in my craw is the apparent disconnect between showing us that spectral imaging for lithium across the lease then go and sample in an area that seemingly had no positive spectral image. I suspect they were beguiled by that piece of rock which they originally thought was spodumene and so centred the sampling near it only to then discover later from mineralogical analysis that the rock was not spodumene but rather something that looked like spodumene ( as they admitted). But I still dont understand why their portable LIBS instrument for on-site quickie lithium analysis would have shown low lithium content in that rock which was an obvious red-flag but they continued their sampling in spite of this. We know they have a LIBS on-site, as do other lithium explorers, it was mentioned in a previous announcement. Surely that LIBS result should have sent alarm bells ringing to the on-site geologist and resulted in a pause and a re-think. My assumption is that it was too "messy" to pull up stumps and walk away from that area once the sampling plan had been committed to, so they just continued come what may, and we are where we are now. Lets hope they have had a rethink and not double down on that area chosen. How about sampling where we have positive spectral imaging and also leverage off PMTs experience in that its the southern flank of the same greenstone belt that is the most prospective.