As a follow-up, apparently the original landing did not go as smoothly as hoped and the probe was unable to anchor itself to the comet on first contact. Subsequently the probe "bounced" back into a position on the comet whereby it's solar arrays* are not longer illuminated hence the probe is relying on limited battery power. The question I have not seen resolved is whether the ESA has decided to try to retrieve as much data as possible with the probe in its current position before the batter power is exhausted vs trying to reposition the probe in a more favorable position on the comet and attempting the anchoring to the comet's surface as was originally intended. Stay tuned.

*For such a distant mission one wonders why a solar array was preferred over an RTG. I'm sure had ESA asked, NASA might have been able to provide, even though I understand the material is in short supply. Or was this yet another case of anti-nuclear bias permeating the scientific community for no real reason?