You're misunderstanding the basis of the query. It's not about...

You're misunderstanding the basis of the query. It's not about the pictures per se. It's about a potential failure to comply with the continuous disclosure requirements. MYL is basically arguing that the exemption under rule 3.1A about matters of supposition or insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure (ie yet to be assayed). The compliance officer is basically suggesting that MYL should have asked for a trading halt as soon as the geos saw the chalcopyrite, and the disclosed that information before resuming trading.