I'm sorry to revert to a previous thread, but I am not yet...

I'm sorry to revert to a previous thread, but I am not yet convinced that the regulatory approval was for Lubricen. This is public information, so why wouldn't Glyn just come out and say it was Lubricen in this response to the e-mail from dossantd?

'The performance shares were issued two years ago to management and were in three tranches. Two of these three have been satisfied, these being the execution of a licensing agreement and achieving regulatory approval for a product.'

I don't really see Lubricen as a product in its own right as it is part of the Bodyguard product:

From Biotech Daily 13th December 2013 -
OBJ said it planned to undertake a larger independent clinical trial during 2014.
The company said that its Bodyguard patch used its low cost magnetic microarray drug delivery technology and its Lubricen formulation with the patch’s “physical kinesiology, proprioception and tendon stabilisation properties, a unique and highly advanced joint treatment product platform will be created”

Further, from earlier in the article -
OBJ director Glyn Denison told Biotech Daily the Lubricen’s active ingredient was a formulation of glucosamine and chondroitin sulphate, not requiring regulatory approval.

How do we align that with OBJ's Shareholder Update on 30th April 2014? -
...the company's Lubricen formulation, a crucial component in Bodyguard's therapeutic effect has been approved for listing by the TGA. TGA listing is an essential component in Bodyguard's pre-market approval process.

Am I splitting hairs here or is there a basis for thinking that regulatory approval is for a product other than Lubricen?