Transcript which is mentioned in ann is for the entire hearing process - ICC chairman statement should still be the crux of this, whereby the ICC chair provides guidance on what is needed in the post-hearing brief to facilitate the arbitrator to make his decision.
From my understanding, the post-hearing brief can only be a page or so, where parties can add context to testimony which is highlighted by the Chair as ambiguous or needing more context.
Transcript signing process is just a formality to confirm that the stenographer has recorded everything verbatim without misinterpreting the oral testimonies of witnesses - excessive back and forths for minor edits like 'a' and 'an' is frowned upon by the ICC.
So i'm going to double down on my jurisdiction verdict timeline of 'BEFORE first week of November'.
The part about the arbitrator setting a procedural timeline is worrying, but my thoughts are that we might have been legally forced to include this as it is a possibility for further hearings on the main part of the case 'abuse of majority shareholder position by AVZ' - let's hope it doesn't get to that because we get a ruling in our favour.
I take solace in the fact that a company update on the procedural timeline does include the possibility of something like 'the arbitrator has decided that no further procedures are required due to our successful jurisdictional challenge. Zijin can fuck right off'.
Edit: existence of transcript has been confirmed, chairman statement is part of this so fingers crossed we can get a look at what the fuck happened (the case is PUBLIC afterall)