Splashdown - I don't disagree with any of your comments but at the same time, you must be able to see that a contrary position is just as valid?
It's really about how you perceive the HLF payments. If you regard a further payment as "bailing out" that's one thing, whereas "making additional expenditure in order to ensure that the first payment wasn't entirely wasted", is another thing.
As for having one rule for one thing and another for another, simple answer is that you can have any rules you like! As I've said, it's our money, and HLF might think it's acceptable to hide behind self-imposed rules, but rules can be changed when necessary - that's what our MP's are for. But we're assuming we know what HLF's position is - seems they've never even been asked!
And as for judging whether 558 is more or less significant than any other artefact, well obviously it's subjective and it's irrelevant. Point is, the money needed is nothing as far as HLF is concerned so surely it's a simple case of asking whether they think it's acceptable to throw-away money, or simply pay a bit more to justify the first payment?
Cornerstone, I think "fraud" would be pushing it! It's not about fraud, it's about wasting huge sums of money and "milking" a project for money which could have gone on more important things. It's not illegal but in view of the nature of the project, I think it's just as objectionable.