Why do you think it is not clear ?
It seems clear as can be, to me, and I don't see anyone else being in the least bit confused by any aspect of it...
Why are you claiming the company "retested" any sample ?
Where did you see the company saying they "retested" any sample ?
How did you determine they have "retested" any sample ?
I don't see any evidence that they have said that, or done that ?
So, why are you saying that ?
I think the PR was well worth the cost... ONLY because it provides such a clear proof of the flagrant errors being flogged in the market...
I think it proves that you are incorrect that the company is not "concerned about their investors" or focused on addressing the problem with fraudulent propagation of negative messages.
In this case, we clearly see a fraud being practiced in the propagation of negative messages... and we see the company correcting the errors being propagated... in just the first line of their PR...
It's clear enough even that the PR has forced a correction in your own errors, in things which you admit today had "confused" you before...
It seems it may be worth it, just for that ?
And, that's all still just the impact of THE FIRST LINE...
I don't see that there's been much proper consideration of the content, meaning, and impact of the rest, yet, and I've not seen any real analysis here... that goes beyond addressing the nature of the errors being flogged in fictionalizing the issues with "metallurgy studies"... ?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
