I'm of the same mind as Old Smokey: "I've never seen ASDA>TODA, perhaps as J_T suggests, it may exist in rare circumstances."
I've had a good re-read of ICAO Annex 14 on stopways, and there is no airport induced limit in length for the stopway. The concept of TORA=TODA, and a longer ASDA is clearly contemplated in ICAO Annex 14. The picture from it should appear below (see example C):
This example is not usually seen in Australia because usually TODA is the full length of the runway plus the length of any clearway. What we do, where there is no designated clearway, is that the part of the runway strip between the end of the runway and the runway strip end is included as part of the TODA. In Australia, this distance is usually 60m, and so the TODA is usually 60m longer than the TORA. This Australian practice has been registered with ICAO. Any stopway is not involved.
I guess some other States do not include this part of the runway strip between the end of the runway and the runway strip end as part of the TODA; hence the ICAO example C in the picture above. This may be the case for NotaLOT.
Please note my frequent use of the word 'usually' in the above. As JT said
Not always useful to try and generalise in performance work ...
The stopway concept in ICAO seems to be that:
a) it can be of lesser strength than the runway
b) it has to be as wide as the runway
c) it must be included in the runway strip.
d) the stringent gradient limits for the first/last quarter of the runway need not be applied.
I can see an advantage using a stopway where the ground is rather uneven (saves on earthworks and levelling), and I can see an advantage where the subgrade is soft and the runway pavement is very thick (reduced thickness). I have looked professionally at some Greek airports recently where it could be of real use. The savings could be worthwhile – certainly it would repay a bit more effort at design stage.
But it is rarely seen in modern airport engineering practice. I speculate that this may be a consequence of de-skilling in the design office, or perhaps it is a consequence of airports outsourcing their engineering to design firms who enjoy getting their design fees paid as a percentage of total construction cost. If they do less work for their fees and don’t refine the design by including stopways, and they reluctantly increase the total construction cost by spending more on earthworks and pavement, well . . . . .
Turning back to NotaLOT's case, I've got a thought for a gentle check. ICAO requires the stopway to be within the runway strip – which means that the obstacles might mean that the runway strip is limited in length and thus preclude a long stopway . . . .