Agreed. My first thought was that additional Geo. info. dictated the nature of the first swing changing. The previous two-hole approach likely reflected what was thought to be the minimum to test for what was implied at the surface. With additional showings over a longer line, more holes would be needed to test the inferred target and lend credence to the interpretation, methodology and validity thereof.

If you acquire more data and don't propose to test it, you look desperate or not credible/professional.