Before considering any formal regulatory complaint, it’s worth taking into account what the CRH program outcome actually was, based on what the company has disclosed.

It’s important to separate program outcome from commercial escalation.

Based on:

• completion of the US demonstration builds

• receipt of the agreed demonstration funding (~ $2m)

• CEO confirmation that the demo “went really well” and achieved its targets, the demonstration program itself was successfully completed.

From an analytical standpoint, the facts support the following conclusion:

• Based on completion of the Demonstration Programme and receipt of the associated funding, FBR met the operational milestones set out in its agreement with CRH Ventures. The subsequent non-exercise of the JV option reflects a separate commercial decision by CRH, not a failure to complete the demonstration milestones.

That sentence is analysis, not a management quote — but it flows directly from disclosed outcomes and the milestone-based payment structure.

Milestones were met.

• The program ran as designed.
• Payment was made.

There is no evidence anywhere of a failed demonstration.

“Why no ‘reason’ was required (or permitted) to be disclosed”

A recurring claim is that “management knows why CRH didn’t proceed but won’t disclose it”, often accompanied by the further, unsubstantiated leap that “there must therefore be a problem with the machine.”

Neither assertion is supported by the facts.

From the CEO’s own explanation:

• CRH held an option, not an obligation, to proceed to a JV

• An option does not require a reason to be given if it is not exercised

• Confidentiality obligations survive the end of the relationship, even if nothing proceeds

• The JV never existed — it was only an option structure

• During the demo period, exclusivity applied and no commercial deals could be taken

Critically:

• FBR was not required to be given a reason

• Management is contractually restricted from speculating on CRH’s internal decision-making

• Silence reflects option structure + confidentiality, not concealment

If there had been a machine or technical failure:

• the demo would not be described as successful

• milestones would not have been paid

• equipment would not remain stored at a CRH facility

and management would not consistently distinguish demo success from commercial selection


Footnote and primary source of disclosure limits:

“Now, so you know, we’ve clearly got an ongoing relationship, but other than saying that our machines are stored in their facility, I can’t really expand any more on that.”
— Mark Pivac, CEO, Fastbrick Robotics, investor briefing (May 2024), timestamps 19:09–19:15

“Now, so you know, we’ve clearly got an ongoing relationship, but other than saying that our machines are stored in their facility, I can’t really expand any more on that.”
— Mark Pivac, CEO, Fastbrick Robotics, investor briefing (May 2024), timestamps 19:09–19:15