Yes, it's interesting to see a slight net increase in total short interest of ~10m shares across the first two price surge days last week (11th & 12th). So much for the headlines...
It's not a big deal, but I achieved some v.slightly different and additional metrics from those you reported. Full worked calcs -- many of which we agree on -- using 11 Sep as an example:
14.15m gross shorts (i.e. 0.47% x 3,011m SOI, per ASX DGSS app).
Implied +5.4m net short delta (i.e. ~608.6m net short interest on 11th, less ~603.2m net short on 10th, per ASIC/Shortman).
Implied ~8.75m short exits/coverings (purchases) (i.e. 14.15m, less 5.4m, from above).
So far, so generally agreed.
As you mentioned, daily gross shorts (only) for the 11th represented 16.8% of that day's trading (i.e. 14.15m gross shorts / 84.5m total volume).
However, when you add the covering (re-purchase) trades to the mix for that day the total percentage around shorting activity (incl. coverings) rises to 27.1% of total turnover for the 11th (i.e. (14.15m + 8.75m) / 84.5m)!
Looking at the intraday data for the 11th, it looks to me like the wave of buyers moved in v.early, triggering some rather hasty short-covering early on. An ineffective counter-push by shorts mid/late-morning, followed by somewhat of a reduction in the worst of the hostilities and a return to a more normal ebb and flow for the balance of that day.
On the 12th the shorts regrouped to have another crack, in an attempt to recover some lost ground by using a bit more firepower (16.5m shares). This resulted in a noticeably higher 23.6% of short-sales against overall slightly lower overall trading volume (70.0m shares). But it wasn't enough to arrest the rising price. And when we add the short-coverings for the day it takes the overall total percentage of turnover ascribed to overall shorter activity (i.e. gross shorts + coverings) to 41.2% of that day's turnover!
So, much greater liquidity across those two days, with a materially higher SP (from a ST lower base) and a slightly higher, but statistically immaterial, increase in net short interest. So much for the (net) 'short covering' headlines, indeed.
What the prices chart won't specifically show is the nose bleed some of the shorts took across those two days. All grist for the mill. And now everyone has returned to their trenches to regroup, recover, and prepare for the next eventual battle.
If nothing else, it should demonstrate that there are no free lunches in this game. There comes a point at any given time (and price!) in which the buyers will wade-in and go toe-to-toe with the shorters.
The big question: Was $2.33 THE low? Dunno. It's a moving feast. Next week's/month's/quarter's/year's fundamentals are just that. A never-ending war/horse race/[pick your metaphor].
There may come a time (i.e. set of circumstances) in which a disorderly unwinding of shorts is triggered. At that point it would be fair to say that the fundamentals wouldn't apply (because the short herd would have their hair on fire in full panicked covering flight). Until then, like gravity, the fundamentals, still apply. (NB: It's also possible that a disorderly unwinding may never eventuate. Perhaps hard to imagine by some right now, but there are mundane, less glamorous, circumstances in which that could very-well happen -- esp. if the bear market grind takes longer than many expect/hope.)
(20min delay)