Based on the 2023Q4 report, and material related to the 2023...

Based on the 2023Q4 report, and material related to the 2023 AGM, then ceteris paribus, I expect project funding in 2024.
To that point, if a prospective funder:
1. Assesses the assets (mine, technology);
2. Assesses the capacity of the company resources (management, etc);
3. Understands the market;
4. Undertakes due diligence;
5. Develops a satisfactory financial/business justification; and
6. Receives its internal approvals,
then there is no reason to defer execution and completion beyond any exclusive period it may have available to it.

Investors realise that some information (particularly finance and supply agreement negotiations) should remain commercial-in-confidence so the company's position or strategy is not compromised.
Some shareholders complain about the amount of information available, but they should ask themselves why the other party to the negotiations isn't making a disclosure. They also have shareholders. The reason is the same: it's not in their interests to disclose to their competitors, suppliers and customers that an investigation is underway.

Both parties will be rightly bound by a non-disclosure agreement that typically prevents unilateral announcements. It's extremely rare for one party to announce an event.

I don't defend the company per se, but I do have some relevant experience and knowledge about how matters are progressed. Where commentors are wrong (either because they haven't read or understood the available information, or because they are simply being mischievous), then I sometimes seek to correct the record.

I am a conviction investor. If a company has a clear business strategy, if a market is available for goods and services, if the leadership team has the relevant skill set, and if the company has a record of achievement, then it will attract investors with conviction.
If I own a company, I will not tear it down. If an employee or a manager tears down a company, then they shouldn't be working for the company. If an owner tears down the company (in preference to engaging in constructive dialogue), then they shouldn't own the company.