As I do not have background expertise/experience I am perceiving...

As I do not have background expertise/experience I am perceiving everything 'as it says (said)' with no fixed ideas
or prejudice apart from right or wrong.

As far as I know, mining(exploration) companies
1. do various surveys
2. to find prospective conductive (ore) body(ies)
3. and then finally do drillings to figure it out what really it is for eventual commercialization purpose.

As I/we do not have direct access to acquired field survey information or data, only company's ASX announcements
are reliable and dependable source to make conclusion or judgement, imo.

My curiousness to find out is exact reason why company said initial Electra's conductance of 300m with 5,000S
and 450m 6,000S into 470m 1100S. Even I never ever used it or do not know exactly how it works, but from
5,000S/6,000S to 1,100S seems drastically lowered (reduced) situation. About 500 to 1,000S difference range variation could be contained techinical or operating errors, but about 4,000S or 5,000S discrepency must be investigated and explained. This is huge swing indeed.

Assuming, in case company announcments said truly 'as it is', I can not understant it why such big differences showing.
Or, just possible case scenario for entertainment purpose, company might find not 100% ruling out case of Electra's
conductive body could be graphitic schist or siltstone same as previous Royal while process of survey or Iris follow-up drillings. So making it seemingly lower possibility of mineral ore bodies just in case.

With common sense, as company is seeking higher grade of Cu sulphide and Au (gold) (=ISCG) deposit.
And those two minerals are utmost top range of conductive minerals, which means those ore bodies are
relatively very higher conductance, say at least more than 5,000S. Even conductance=conductivity x thickness.

Anyway, I will leave to background experts hands to analyze preciously.


Regards,