Nope, you're wrong. Lots of words, but you are wrong, and you continue to use a circular argument. It will be interesting to see if the geologists associated with the project insist on a correction in a PR. We'll see how much they value their reputations and credibility.
This much is very clear in your statement:
I'm not even an expert
Think about this, using your logic of how you came up with the 40-fold factor (and not the actual 800-fold factor) for a 50 pound original sample :
If they had started with a 100 pound sample, and concentrated down to an ounce....you would use a 20 fold factor, using your logic.
If they had started with a 500 pound sample and concentrated down to an ounce....you would use a 4 fold factor, using your logic.
If they had started with a 2000 pound sample and concentrated down to an ounce, you would use a one fold factor. The concentrate result would equal the assay of the entire 1 ton original sample. A concentrate assay equals the assay of a one-ton original sample? Does that make any sense at all? Nope. Your logic on how they came up with the factor to divide into your concentrate assay........is completely wrong.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
