"Honestly, the existing Gilbeys pit is tight and complicated and...

"Honestly, the existing Gilbeys pit is tight and complicated and would take some significant upfront capex to reconfigure - cutbacks etc for FP/WW access or for a NN decline"

Did you read what @pbawley quoted above that SL stated :
""We are going to mine NN and it's not a big stretch to then move accross from there and mine those bulk stopes under the main pit"

I am thinking that is a different scenario from doing cutbacks , in that is is about possibly putting the decline portal at the far end of the pit or even over at Slyfox and running it under the Gilbeys pit through the base of WW and then to NN so deeper than the previous decline proposal as a longer decline at say a 10% grade .
Bulk mining could be sublevel caving of WW allowing the pit to collapse down , and then using a draw pont that feeds the ore in towards the decline , and at the same time continue running the decline to under NN
Where the decline ends under NN there would be a T intersection where decline then spirals up for one heading and and another decline spirals down ,for another heading as that Matty guy on money of mines proposed to increase tonnage that can be extracted .
SO bulk mining WW at say 3 gram a tonne ore , (tonnage and ozs recovered we do not know yet but its gravy ) , and then using two headings from NN to mine say 160,000 oz a year over say a combined 120 vertical meters of development a year .
THere has obviously been some paradigm shifts in concepts towards mining between the last presentation and this one regarding the potential way forward , and I surmise there has to have been an outside influence that has resonated with SL , more power to him for listening to others ideas .