The problem is that IF a working camera were due anywhere near this Fall, they would KNOW at this juncture if the existing glass would work with it - either via common mount or an adapter, or Allah forbid, a Solm-only upgrade.
Given that people would be fine with simple 'dumb' compatibility (same physical mount, ROM recognition in EXIF, FC), the mount design, such an integral component of the body's form factor, would have been decided on Page 1 of the PowerPoint proposal package for the R10.
R10 Form Factor Tiger Team : (Session 1, Hour 1) : Sensor size? Built-in portrait grip? Size of rear screen? Mount diameter? Registration depth? Built-in Flash? LiO or Nicad battery?
It's not as if they design the beast, then sit back over a stein mere months away from release and someone bright spark goes, "Oh Ingrid, what mount (diameter, mechanics, electronics, ROM recognition...) are we using for this sucker anyway?"
The in-house software, materials, mold-design, optical (for the new glass), packaging, manufacturing layout/flow, etc., engineers, not to mention those within the various parts suppliers, their Solm-based buyers etc., (the list would go on for pages) would all HAVE to know early the BASICS of the mount diameter, mechanics and electronic connections.
This is especially the case today where DSLR designers are optimizing glass performance via in-camera tweaking during the capture process.
The software engineers would need to know early in the design process if they were needing to include in-camera correction of ANY degree (or even lens recognition) for existing ROM lenses for CA, vignetting, etc., as per the H3D.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Any Board preso for approval of the R10 line would include anticipated NPV or hurdle rate analysis. This is the Go/No-Go Time that has Product Managers being especially nice to the firm's finance types. I mean REALLY nice.
That go/no-go analysis package would have been started with a simple financial model (a virtual R10 created within Excel, etc) detailing each and every part of one R10. The parts list would be regardless of importance or cost (from sensor to lens cap and foam packaging) and would include the number of each part required per body, the standard cost of each part + a detailed labor study showing the standard labor cost expected to manufacture and package 1 body.
The R10 model would be grossed-up for anticipated volumes and pricing by region, etc. If more than one body is planned (say R10 and R10 Lite), a model would be done for each and an 'average' R10 produced/sold would be virtually created using weighted average sales numbers/pricing by region by model expected. This gross-up would include an expectation of the average number of accessories sold per camera body. Each accessory would, in turn, have its own Excel 'virtual' model.
The financial types don't sleep a lot for some months and have been known to tell of waking up on the sofa -- reaching for a keyboard.
These models are updated on a regular basis pre-launch (assuming approval) during various 'gating stages' (further go/no go points to check that nothing has gone South since approval) and at least 1/year post-launch during standard costing and variance analysis at the plant(s).
Note: This averaging actually gets some players in serious trouble if the expected Wavg 'R10' model sold differs from the sales reality. Costs variances go wonky, and margins get reamed.
In short, if a camera is coming any time soon, they KNOW the mount solution now.
So.... either:
a) no working camera
b) no working camera any time soon
c) no compatibility (an ugly visualization)
d) a solution that is going to PO a lot of folks (why tell them now?)
e) all is fine, but Kaufmann (sic?) is a masochist