Ann: Response to ASX Query Letter, page-21

It's past the point of a look and see query. If you read through end to end you can see that they're building a case - asking questions in the first section to set out an agreed set of facts (eg. 'bags' were 300kg less than originally indicated, what the max day production was and how often they hit it (the max. was 11 bags on 1x day), what the average rate of production was (4.8 bags per day at the time key times that guidance was re-affirmed). Then once those numbers are in place (as stated by the company in it's response) they use those numbers to compare with what actually happened.

The starkest difference is probably in the section where they timestamp how many bags would need to be produced per day for rest of quarter at each time guidance was re-affirmed (late on it was 149 bags per day - a bit of a stretch when they were averaging 4.8 and had never produced more than 11 in a day). They ASX have done this by getting the company to answer the questions themselves - a little two card trick regulators use to get people to admit fault and to show how (in this case) there is just no way that the company couldn't have known that they weren't being honest.

The overarching issue is one of integrity - lies and misinformation do not tend to occur in isolation within a company.