Still think you're missing the point, Ulric. ATSB issued a release March 28 saying, "plane had less fuel, so we're moving search 1,100km NE". It is a matter of simple geometry to prove that, if the starting point doesn't change (Appendix A suggests it didn't), and the Inmarsat arcs didn't change (they have always been taken as gospel), then their statement is false - the decision is counter-indicated by what would have HAD to have been their model's reaction to less available fuel.
When the ATSB issues key statements (this fuel analysis underpinned the critical decision precipitating an 8 week waste of time and money up at s20 lat) which are provably false - and when this falsehood can be demonstrated by the ATSB's own data (which suggests they ought reasonably to have KNOWN they were false) - I for one feel that patience is one of the last things called for. On this, you and I may have to agree to disagree.