"JC can then go to stakeholders and get funding for DFS as they...

"JC can then go to stakeholders and get funding for DFS as they can advise the above and will receive 15-25% equity..."

We don't know the cost of the DFS, but the general indication is between 0.5% to 2.0% of the mine development budget.
At the cheaper 0.5% of the budget, the margin of error will unlikely meet the expected maximum threshhold of 15%. More likely to be a midpoint between a PFS and DFS margin of error. At the pricier 2.0% of the budget, the margin of error will likely be slightly lower than 15%.

(One wonders how much AUZ paid for its DFS. Former CEO Michael Holmes had to announce a re-working of the DFS, therefore the implication was a margin of error significantly higher than 15%.)

Issuing 15%-25% of ARL SOI to fund the DFS will definitely be a market sensitive announcement.
Not quite the best of news for LT shs who have indulged in positing a range of the best case scenarios, but the announcement will still be much better than the one announcing the last cr at 70c ps.

Let's assume that the JC want the most accurate estimates with the minimum margin of error, so the DFS will cost 2% of $3.1B = approx. $62M.
$62M / 15% of 200M shares = $2.06 per share issued to the JC - V1.
$62M / 25% of 200M shares = $1.24 per share issued to the JC - V2.

The impact on LT shs ARL portfolio...
Let's assume a LT sh has 1.0M ARL shares at current market value of 75c ps, with a $750,000 portfolio value.

V1 will increase the portfolio value to $2,060,000.
V2 will increase the portfolio value to $1,240,000.
Both versions seem okay, while awaiting further impressive progress at Goongarie, Kalpini, etc.

But what about the dilutionary effect?
There is an invisible dilution to the LT sh's ARL portfolio.
V1 is the portfolio valuation after a 15% dilution.
V2 is the portfolio valuation after a 25% dilution.

But because shares dilution is largely invisible, and further hidden by the substantial share price re-rating, many shs are in the main okay with it.
A case of having a substantial rerating is far better than nothing.

Removing the dilutionary effect, the original ARL portfolio valuation becomes:
$2,060,000 x 1.15 = $2,369,000, adding back $309,000 in value.
$1,240,000 x 1.25 = $1,550,000, adding back $310,000 in value.
The added back values are quite close, being, say, $310,000, which represents the dilutionary effect to the portfolio value.

Question: Why is the diluted $ value the same if the % share dilution is so different?

Answer (1): Because this post is considering the effect of the $62M in-kind "capital injection" that causes the share dilution. That is, the vauation basis is $62M, irrespective of the no. of shares issued to the JC.
Answer (2): To consider the situation the other way round, that is, the valuation of the no. of shares issued to the JC vis-a-vis the current SOI, a new set of assumptions need to be made, which discussion is for another post.

Can a dilutionary effect be avoided? Answer: Yes.
ARL can negotiate to repay the cost of the DFS over the, for now, PFS calculated payback period of 3.1 to 3.5 years.
This would mean that the funding sought of $3.1 billion would be topped up by $62M to become $3.162 billion.
However, I believe that even the PFS capex budget would have within it an embedded buffer to absorb about 5% ($155M) of costs overrun. This then means that the DFS cost can easily be absorbed into the PFS capex budget.

What does it mean for the LT shs who hold, say, a modest 100,000 shares?
It means that for this bracket of shareholders, there is portfolio valuation preservation of $31,000 (10% of $310,000), when the dilutionary effect is avoided.

The above is my view and calculations.
Happy for posters who possess better mathmatical skills than me to critique and refine.