If you read the news release, antlizzie, it says they tested ZEN's graphite for ease of exfoliation and rate of conversion to graphene. Then they say they would like to continue testing for applications. So what ZEN announced was a finished test, one that had to have actual numbers to justify those statements. Isn't it important to know whether the recovery rate was closer to 100% than 0%? As it stands, maybe the standard compared against only yielded 20% graphene, a number that has been released by another company. If that's the case, ZEN would be correct in saying they had a much higher yield, even if their actual yield was only 25% or so. But by leaving it at "much higher", they (correctly) surmise that people, especially shareholders, will assume a high recovery. Which I bet you have so done.

There are several other cases where ZEN has skimped on, or wholly omitted, numbers from statements that need those numbers for verification and clarity. Sometimes they may not be able to release them, but lots of times they could have, but chose not to. It is very difficult to properly assess the progress of any company without the data with which to analyze that company.