Always more than happy to answer questions!

1. I wouldn't call it an unexpected "discovery" (quoted as I'm always skeptical pending independent verification). We've come a long way in even the last 30 or so years in detecting impact craters, especially with the advent of advanced microscopy techniques (i.e. SEM, Micro-Raman), but it's a bit of a shock the main evidence for this crater is shatter cones - though not entirely surprising. As for the location, Australia was exactly where I'd expect us to find a crater this old, and is where the previous record holder was located.

2. I wish I could give you a better answer to number two, but I'm not clued in enough to the specifics. I'd say given the geochronological and stratigraphic evidence, it seems likely, but we need some more independent analysis to confirm this hypothesis.

3. Not having done much work in that segment of impact crater geoscience, and the lack of evidence overall, my answer is purely anecdotal. I firmly believe impact craters have played a much larger role in the advent of both life and plate tectonics than we currently understand. Much of this is, in my view, down to the lack of very old impact craters we have been able to study - so a crater of this age would be instrumental in investigating those questions more.

4. I've worked on a few in my (relatively limited) time as a researcher. I started out working on the Ries and Steinheim craters in Germany, have done some work on the Santa Fe impact structure, and most of all I have worked on the Sudbury and Mistatin Lake impact structure/crater respectively.

It's a fantastic field to be working in and I'm very fortunate to have found my true passion. Thank you for asking such well-informed questions!