That is how it should be read, no binding commitment has been...

That is how it should be read, no binding commitment has been made but confidence that a deal will be done. There's 2 ways they can announce information depending on where they are at with negotiations, both have potential repercussions in the event they're not speaking honestly.
The first way is through a price sensitive announcement being made via the ASX, to do this they need a binding agreement. If they announced but didn't have a binding agreement or they announced and there was a weak termination clause allowing the funding party to not comply or terminate and didn't disclose that, they would be in a huge amount of trouble with the ASX and shareholders. You could take a lot of confidence from this scenario as the management team would have to be nuts to do either of the above. I don't think any one is questioning this piece but thought I'd spell it out anyway.
The second way is through generic marketing/media communication. To do this they must put disclaimers around any announced information that it hasn't gotten to the stage where they have anything binding and is therefore not material to share price (yet), which is what they've done. Otherwise they must announce via the first way. If they make information public that they're close and confident on securing a partnership but with no binding agreement, and it turns out it was smoke and mirrors/nothing of substance had been negotiated or funding parties didn't exist, they likely would be in a bit of trouble with the ASX (as I think they've alluded to it in ASX announcements) but the greater risk is that shareholders could successfully sue in a class action. Just because something isn't announced through the ASX, doesn't mean they can say whatever they want without consequence. You can still have some confidence from this scenario but not as much as the first way, they must still have reasonable belief that what they're saying is truthful.