You are right, but most likelyin this order:A HerVaxx deal...

You are right, but most likely
in this order:

A HerVaxx deal first, now that the 24 PFS events are across the line. Highly likely a collaboration to combine HerVaxx with existing drugs and apply for accelerated approvals. (Note plural)

2nd, a Pd1Vaxx deal when Ph2 data is met. Why not sooner? We have the money to advance Ph2 trials and successfull completion demands a far, far superior price to giving it away at the end of a successful Ph 1.

3rd , a CF33 deal in due course, as above. We have the money in the bank, add a load more cash from the first deal, so again why give it up for peanuts so soon?.

A refresher on the Genentech/Roche collaboration, as i have seen a lot of misinformation written here.
Genentech was a pioneer in the development of monoclonal antibodies. In 1990 Roche paid US$2 Billion for a 60% stake.
The collaboration flourished, a number of blockbuster drugs were developed including Herceptin and Avastin.
The balance 40% was then bought in 2009 for US$46.8Billion.

I guess you could call that a win/win for both the Genentech shareholders and Roche, sharing the upside. Imagine if the 100% had been sold outright in 1990..."if only we'd done that" said the guy at Roche!

Fast forward to today, or 6 months time as we see more data across the pipeline, including initial feedback on CF33, and a similar win/win collaboration is what we want to see.

But quite frankly if i was the CEO at Big Pharma responsible for M&A... i would be as cut-throat as hell and put my balls on the block and try like mad to own the full 100% as soon as possible. Wrap it up, own the space, palm off the competition and kiss goodbye those Asx shareholders. It could just save a lazy $40 billion over time. It could just save $500 billion of revenue going to the competition over a 14 year period.
The only way to do that is come out of the blocks with your biggest and best too good to refuse offer in a lightning strike.

Thats why 26c is cheap, that is why 55c is still cheap.

Another gem of Wisdom from Philip Fisher's investor bible - Common Stocks, Uncommon Profits

"The only true test of whether a stock is “cheap” or “high” is not its current price in relation to some former price, no matter how accustomed we may have become to that former price, but whether the company's fundamentals are significantly more or less favorable than the current financial-community appraisal of that stock."

classic.... don't worry, am working on it!