Interesting idea, not sure if it would be readily accepted as ethical or not.

I also disagree on the premise that this is intentional. If you wanted the second NR to amplify the first, you would be putting out a "correction" that would improve your position, not take away.

For instance, the first article would have said they hit on 6 holes, then corrected to say 7. And the math on the depth would have been say 20m, corrected to 30m.

This would also lead the investor to reread the NR, looking for any other mistakes that could have been made, but with an optimistic view from a NR corrected upwards, instead of the pessimism that could result from perceptions made when a NR is corrected down.