ASX should look into whether CPV's breakeven analysis is...

ASX should look into whether CPV's breakeven analysis is "misleading".

This company is not a startup. In almost 10 years, they have deliberately chosen NOT to reveal LCOE or other proof that their products are:
1. commercially competitive
2. commercially viable.

Some of the marketing and sales JVs signed by Victor after staying in 5 star hotels to attend exhibitions, are now more than 12 months old. What are the sales revenue and net profit returns?

CPV has quoted market for office buildings and included pictures of high rise office buildings in literature, but it signed JVs with street furniture and street art companies. Did they even generate any sales since signing the JVs?

There doesn't appear to be any proof ot life, sorry, proof of commercial sales since IPO. If CPV is waiting on ARUP designs for commercially viable products, then why the resources spent on qualifying for those Standards? Those qualifications are for commercially viable and competitive products, not for R&D.

I was reading about the alleged sport grant rorts. CPV R&D grant doesn't appear to have tested any crops after almost 4 years. Again, why is ASX not investigating? Millions of $$ from shareholders were applied for matching criteria for that grant. How was the money applied? How much was Victor paid? What did he do to justify the remuneration? Who else were paid? What were the R&D results? How have taxpayers and shareholders benefited?

So many questions, so few answers ....