"As per the contract, both SYA and PLL have to agree to proceed...

"As per the contract, both SYA and PLL have to agree to proceed downstream"

No, from SYA shareholders point of view, PLL has to agree otherwise the OTA will become null and void.

Allow me to elaborate on this theory from a legal perspective.
Here is the first OTA with PLL:

As I said before, it’s not advisable to sign an agreement that includes a condition clause. This OTA clearly permits either party to dissolve the agreement under the following circumstances:
1. If SYAQ and PLL doesn't agree on a start date for product delivery;
2. If either party changes its development schedule.

Given the widespread dissatisfaction with this agreement, SYA had informed PLL of its intention to alter its developmentplan. Specifically, SYA proposed shifting from a pure concentrate strategy to a combination of mining and downstreamprocessing in 2026. Eventually the first OTA was revoked.

Here is the second OTA with PLL.


The condition clause of the second OTA consists of two components:
firstly, agree to a chemical plant, which could either be carbonate plant in NAL or another lithium chemical plant at different location.
Secondly, once an agreement is reached, the concentrate will be distributed according to a set priority.
We can draw following conclusion from the second OTA:

1. The agreement will become null and void if PLL does not agree to the downstream processing plant after evaluating the two options;
2. Two options: either carbonate plant in NAL, or chemical plant in different place;
3. The trade-off study is for chemical plant in different place;
4. This explains why we do hydroxide study in Amoss, if Amoss is gone, carbonate plant in NAL is the only option left?;
5. This OTA will cease once chemical plant is up and running, chemical plant and OTA can't coexist;
6. Will keep providing concentrate to PLL at volume that been left after chemical plant for LOM;
7. It looks like we are in the driving seat;
8. We need a CEO who can stand up and revoke OTA when our partner doesn't agree with chemical plant at some stage;
9. We need a CEO who has clear timeline to execute our downstream processing strategy;

"In this much lower Spodumene pricing environment (relative to a year ago), it's more difficult for both SYA and PLL to fund the Carbonate plant, noting the other Capex requirements of NAL's ongoing capital works program and Moblan"
This excuse sound familiar, remember last time the low pricing environment was used to persuade SYA to sign a $900 CAP agreement?