Just to add a bit more. The analytical report doesn't include details of sample preparation but one assumes its a bulk analysis from a sample representative of the overall composition. That would make sense since the results are quoted in ppm (=mg/kg) and if you divide by 10,000 you get a percentage; the total of all the values then gives pretty much 100%.
So, what it shows is that the sample analysed at 97.16% iron with 0.93% manganese and lesser amounts of other metals. The levels of the non-ferrous metals are not consistent with the composition of any class of meteorites. Nickel is also conspicuously absent, which would never be the case for a meteorite with that amount of iron since the two metals always occur together in meteorites with iron predominating.
If that is a full bulk analysis then what you have is not a natural 'rock' since the report only shows the presence of metals, but none of the other elements that would be expected in rock samples. No silicon is reported for example. It would have to be something man-made. Depending on how the sample was prepared, the results might be reported as percentages of the metallic portion of the specimen only, in which case it could be a rock but still not a meteoritic rock.
