Their answers are gold for any potential shareholder legal...

Their answers are gold for any potential shareholder legal action IMO. They are digging themselves deeper with every answer.

Their answer to the leaf tissue tests shows that there was a lot of variability over the flowering dates of all the varieties and fields as to be expected. Gradually occurring between August 1st and mid September. The CBD% as measured in the compliance testing on 18th Sept showed a range of 1.19 to 2%. Ie. Some flowers were already at week 7 of development.
IMO It is an absurdity to claim that the entire trial farm, at totally different stages of flower development, then suddenly developed a CBD% range of 5.9 to 14% only 6 days later!

Their prologue on biomass quantity shows they are attempting to rely on continuous disclosure rule 3.1A which has an exception for matters of supposition.
Although they had harvested 20% by area of the crop, and had only harvested 50k lbs, they seem to believe that they were unable to make any disclosure until they knew the exact and complete harvest results when “all supposition was eliminated”
They knew at this stage that the biomass quantity was significantly lower than guidance, but they somehow thought they needed to know by exactly how much before notifying the market that something was wrong.

IMO this is a woeful misunderstanding of Rule 3.1A. They might like to read guidance note 8 and the specific example G in Annexure A which gives a relevant example.