This is what I am thinking, of course all IMO and please do not...

This is what I am thinking, of course all IMO and please do not make an investment decision on the following as this is neither proven or substantiated in any way. Still interesting and worthy of discussion, maybe some qualified heads out there can provide input

I think it is pretty clear that David Woodall was operating as a lame duck CEO from early 2022 and Rowena was being primed as replacement CEO. The trend change in share price, the decline in announcements, the change in language from the Board and Management, the issue of rights to Rowena in February 2022 under the employee incentive scheme with no exercise price are all indicators of this. It would go to reason that a shift in CEO would coincide with a shift in the direction of the business which was not communicated to the market at that time. There is a clear shift in timelines in the most recent presentation when compared to early 2022. There is also a notable decline in the number of metals plants proposed by the Company. It is within reason then that any catalyst for a change in leadership was also the same catalyst which may have led to the slip in timelines and the decline in the proposed number of metal plants around the world and that these changes would have been known to the Company well before it was communicated.

There has been a notable shift in language since 2021 that would indicate a declining relationship between arms of the South Korean Government and ASM operating in South Korea within the Korean Metal Plant yet no material announcement that would provide reason for such a declining relationship. It would be within reason then that all previously communicated announcements are in affect and that the Company is not aware of any reason that would be cause to a decline in relationship.

There has been a shift in interest from the consortium of South Korean Investors from the initial framework agreement released in 2021 including a move from exclusivity to non-exclusivity in the revised framework agreement in May 2022. It is within reason that shareholders are of the opinion that this consortium of investors have available to them a readily accessible source of funds specified in the agreements and that the Company has substantiated this readily accessible source of funds.

Further investigation is needed to determine if there is reason to believe that delays with meeting conditions on the consortium framework agreement and EPCD contract may be as a result of due diligence work carried out at ASMs Flagship Dubbo project at Toongi whereby minerology and chemical compositions are likely to impact significantly on project optimisation.

From the period of November 2021 to 18th July 2022, is the Company aware of any information that upon close reflection should have been released to the market as it may have been deemed material news that may have contributed to the decline in the value of it's securities or could have potentially influenced an investor to offload their securities should they have chosen to do so?