I actually wanted to write a lot on this the same day this post was made but due to some circumstances i could not,
so anyways, late but my response to this, based on all the observations so far; there are quite a lot of positives on this design of kalashnikov derivative from SSS D, some are quite obvious like
+ top rail on hinged top cover that's actually flush with top cover of the handguards,
+ SLR / INSAS inspired non-reciprocating charging handle on left side, around similar position on top cover
+ due to above, they could eliminate that charging handle slot on right side and facilitate ambidextrous fire selectors on both sides, seemingly thumb/finger operated and so,
+ removal of that iron sight block+gas tube retaining piece atop its front trunnion, and replacing it with something shorter, lesser in mass, that facilitated hinge for top cover and likely pin-based thing for (upper) handguards + gas tube -> now this one part is often underlooked in AK design because few people understand benefit of going this way; it essentially helps in shedding some mass off centre of the rifle, plus it allows for better design of top cover mounting than typical AK and also for better handguard design that could facilitate gas tube within it
+ milled receiver, milled top cover, tactical sling mounts, flip-up backup iron sights (as to make up space for optical sights as primary thing), side folding buttstock with AR buffer tube mount as to facilitate length adjustable AR buttstock there, new AR pattern flash hider, instead of going full retardo with 3-6-9 position rails on handguards they opted for giving sections of rails there rest allowing some space for gripping it with hands and if someone still wants to go full taktikool giving out M-LOK style slots there on 3-9 positions just in case
and so on,
now, with most of the positives mentioned, i'd like to question some choices here, you could count it as negatives
- that choice of fire selection modes...i mean...
if they're attempting to make a modern AK derivative with focus at tactical-ness then giving it a configuration where semi-auto is on top (i.e. an active fire mode at topmost) while safe is down below is counterintuitive compared to what most assault/battle rifles have on theirs for fire selection...this is total opposite
even INSAS is more conventional, more intuitive, more 'natural' with fire selection when from top-to-bottom twist of fire selector it goes from Safe, to Semi-Auto (or 'Repetition' as per brit chronology
legacy of SLR here) then when turned ~90 degree onwards it goes Burst (three-rounds, of course) - well mostly except going to 3RB but from Safe-to-Semi and vice versa it is.
They should have, in my opinion, opted for topmost position as Safe, then middle one as Semi, and bottom most as Full auto in ideal solution (something that is already done well on INSAS Excaliburs
and those subsequent newer INSAS forks like Ughram Rifle, ARDE 5.56mm carbine and so on) - if not that then just printing AK's topmost Safe, middle one Auto and bottommost Semi was also okay...
but this one, so counterintuitive...