Ann: Response to ASX Aware Letter, page-3

We can call this shit out now:

1. They told the fund managers the waiver was granted - we have all seen the term sheet.
2. They didnt just decide to raise to expand facilities - that was pre determined and finalised without advising the market during the halt.
3. MST and Fosters both had vested interests in the stock prior to the raise, having ben PAID to complete the analysis on the reports.

My correspondence to IR this morning:

I am writing to seek formal clarification on several matters relating to the recent capital raise and the basis on which the raise price was determined.

Analyst Reporting

At the October 2025 shareholder meeting, a question was raised regarding analyst coverage from MST and Fosters - specifically, whether either firm was contracted by the company to initiate their reports. This question remains unanswered and I request a direct response.

For context, the pre-waiver price targets were as follows:
- Fosters (October 2025): 12-month price target of 41 cents, since upgraded to 51 cents
- MST (one month pre-waiver): valuation of 28 cents, since upgraded to 29 cents post-waiver

I have three specific questions arising from this:

1. What is the company's position on these analyst reports, given that both firms co-led the capital raise at 22.5 cents per share - a price justified on the basis of "softening markets" - while $20 million was fully raised within half a day?

2. Does the company consider it a material concern that the two firms facilitating the raise hold price targets with a 75% variance (29 cents vs 51 cents) post-waiver? Were the interests of these facilitators aligned with accurate fair value pricing, or does the company acknowledge a potential conflict of interest?

3. Regarding MST specifically: their post-waiver valuation of 29 cents represents an increase of just 1 cent from their pre-waiver estimate of 28 cents. While 29 cents does represent an uplift from the current share price of 22 cents, this is not a satisfactory assessment - MST's own pre-waiver valuation was 28 cents, meaning their revised target implies negligible value has been added by the waiver itself. Does the company have any concerns about the adequacy of this assessment, and does it consider MST's revised valuation to be a credible reflection of fair value?

Shareholder Dilution

Shareholder value has declined materially since the waiver - the opposite of what was broadly anticipated. Prior to the raise, shareholders were advised that the $5 million Tenmile loan carried zero dilution, that existing funds were sufficient to meet capacity requirements, and that prepayments from Phase and BARDA funding would support initial product uptake post-waiver.

Given these assurances, I would like to know what concrete steps the company is taking to address the ongoing dilution and share price overhang.

Long-Term Strategy

I have been a shareholder since August 2023 and have held through the waiver process with considerable patience. References to the "long game" are not a satisfactory response without specificity. I would appreciate the company providing a clear definition of what its expected timeline looks like and what milestones shareholders should use to measure progress.

I look forward to a substantive response to each of the above points.

Thank you.