" it’s a bit sketchy having it presented that way" – that's a...

" it’s a bit sketchy having it presented that way" – that's a kind way of putting it. It makes it impossible to interpret with any certainty. Let's unpack stage 6:

What goes into the $91, and what does 70% certainty mean? I'm using little subscripts to indicate the stage the amounts related to...

It could mean ($28m₈ + $33m₇ + $30m₆) is 70% certain, implying expected sales down the track of $63.7m? But the $28m is 100% certain; the order has been received and a deposit paid. And the $33 million is 85% certain, so we would expect sales of $28m from that. So out of the $63.7m expected from stage 6, $56 million is already expected from stages 7 and 8. So the extra $30 introduced is going to contribute only $7.7m, which is way under 70%, so putting 70% in the heading is confusing and misleading in this case.

Or it could mean ($28m₈ + (85% * $33m)₇ + $35m₆) with the 70% only applying to the extra $35m, leading to expected sales of $80m. So in this case the 70% doesn't apply to the whole $91, and you have to calculate backwards to get to the number it does apply to.

It's pretty clear that the graph is intended to convey an impression of increasing bubbles and numbers without conveying any actual information.

And if the 100%-certain order book plus the 85% "we're writing out the purchase order now" can't be converted to revenue within six months, then what's the point in presenting this mush in the first place. The whole slide could be replaced with "we think we're going to go good" and it would be equally meaningful.