I don't think it's changed the interpretation or, probably, the...

I don't think it's changed the interpretation or, probably, the potential. But who knows? As I said, they haven't provided any context for this hole. Which is also...sloppy, poor disclosure and not really helping much. Like, where is it on the long section? Where is a cross section? Is it in the mafics, the mafic sediments, or the Ravelstone? Is it oxidised or fresh? Is it chalcocite, or not? is it associated with veining? All pertinent questions to be asked, because there's no real information. Which is bizarre - if they announced that intersection today, it would be bottle rockets all round.