I should have added the ASX in that list too, they don't care...

I should have added the ASX in that list too, they don't care either. What they do care about, very much, is continuous disclosure. As you point out rule 3.1. Davidspades has posted the protocol for all, but IMO has highlighted the wrong line. Our withholding results falls under point 3. "The information concerns matters of supposition or insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure." I note your question, what is inconclusive about a lab result? The results individually may imply information that is contradictory to the picture that is implied by thre geology and subsequent holes. Perhaps a huge anomaly that needs to be investigated before jumping the gun. Perhaps something else? These are all pure guesses and none of us know. I am aware of continuous disclosure requirements and this particular situation does seems, let's say unorthodox. But, I haven’t passed the bar and I am not a geologist. As I am not, I do not think I will be writing to our lawyer, geologist director telling him that he is in fact in breach of the ASX disclosure rules. That would be stupid of me because I am not qualified to make that accusation. Unless you have passed the bar and have extensive geological knowledge of the site... well, I am sure you get the picture. You've been around here a while, you’ve seen how methodical amd squeaky clean they run this ship. There's no way rule 3.1 hasnt been thoroughly considered by management (and likely putside consultation obtained for verification... as a lawyer would do)