Mine Closure & Rehabilitation Provisioning AI Agent
Carry the disturbance ledger, unit rates and assumptions under a closure cost estimate, and reconcile it against the provision and the assurance lodged — a named person signs the plan, officers sign the accounts.
Ground is disturbed, and the survey behind it is read from supported mine-planning, GIS and survey sources.
02
A hectare is classified by domain and status, and the reported rehabilitation figure is derived from that ledger.
Reason
03
An area stays disturbed until completion criteria are evidenced against it, rather than when seeding finishes.
04
A cost line is built on a dated unit rate, and the source and the date of that rate travel with the line.
05
A non-use management area keeps its management cost, so dropping a rehabilitation cost does not zero the domain.
Decide
06
A revision falls due on a trigger or a due date, and the mine-plan change that fired it is named on the estimate.
07
A levy basis stays apart from the closure cost estimate; WA guideline v6.0 rules the MRF estimate out for it.
Out
08
A regulatory estimate, a provision and the lodged instrument are bridged off one ledger, each difference attributed.
09
A write action runs only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles the support and the bridge; a named person signs the closure plan, and the officers who sign the accounts carry the provision.
Example workflow
One estimate, ledger to lodgement
AgentHuman
1Disturbance data receivedSurvey pickups, mine plan, GIS layers and the prior annual return
2Ledger assembledHectares by domain, status and year, each carrying the survey it came from
3Estimate builtCost lines, unit rates, assumption register and confidence
4Controls appliedLedger reconciliation, rate-currency checks, accuracy-range tests and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is lodged at any of them — the agent is assembling support, and the technical services lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the technical services head.
Low confidence
Adds a cost-engineering read first.
Technical services approval
The estimate is held with its assumption register, its open variances and the confidence.
Approve · Amend · Send to cost review
Approved — released for lodgement▼
6Closure systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedAmendment distance, variance outcomes, regulator queries and post-lodgement revisions
Amendments
Every reviewer amendment is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Lodging the closure plan — WA guideline v6.0 names no signatory.
Certifying a Code Part under O. Reg. 35/24 — a qualified person.
Setting the rehabilitation provision in the accounts.
Determining the assurance or the security held.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Maintain the disturbance ledger by domain, status and year.
✓Carry each cost line with its dated unit rate and the source it was drawn from.
✓Run the regulatory and accounting builds off the one ledger.
✓Bridge the estimate to the provision and attribute each difference.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of approval.
Nominating an ERC period or a risk category.
Approving a unit rate that departs from the tool.
Drafting a sustainability or framework disclosure.
Changes to rate, domain or approval rules.
Example output
One cost line, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the record it was drawn from.
Closure estimate output · single cost lineIllustrative example
Domain
Cost line
Disturbed area
Source of record
Confidence
Rate basis
Waste rock dump
Topsoil respread and deep ripping across the dump batters
126 ha
Survey pickup, dated
89%
Contract schedule rate, dated
As receivedTaken from the survey pickup and the contract schedule — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
A site-wide disturbance-reconciliation figure can read as clean while a few rehabilitation domains absorb most of the amendments. Nestack reports the amendment rate by domain, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Non-use management areas
7.7%
3.7×
Review
Tailings storage facilities
5.4%
2.6×
Review
Waste rock dumps
3.3%
1.6×
Watch
Cleared laydown and hardstand
2.2%
1.0×
Normal
Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. cleared-laydown baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
No cycle closes without a new test
A cycle is done when the stale assumption has become a case the next release must pass. That suite is what the next estimate rebuilt is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Amendment rate rises in a rehabilitation domain.
02Diagnose
The unit rate that was current when the plan was written, and never since, is read back to one cause.
03Improve
Stamp the change; the cost lines behind it are filed against that number.
04Verify
Each touched estimate case is run once more, and one red holds it back.
05Learn
It stays as a standing test, and the rate rules move with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next estimate is detected against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, estimating workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Closure workflow discovery and boundary mapping.
02Survey, GIS and ledger source assessment.
03Unit-rate, method and jurisdiction rule mapping.
04Disturbance ingestion and reconciliation.
05Estimate assembly and source binding.
06Confidence scoring and variance routing.
07Technical services approval workflow.
08Survey and finance-system integration.
09Disturbance and unit-rate cases.
10Guardrails and approval controls.
11Provision-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne site, one domain setProductionProduction survey systemsAdvancedMultiple sites / jurisdictions
Introduced at Pilot
Estimate assembly and reconciliation✓✓✓
Technical services approval✓✓✓
Disturbance-reconciliation baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by domain—✓✓
Variance workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Survey-and-ledger integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-jurisdiction estimating rules——✓
Multi-stage technical approvals——✓
High domain volume——✓
Multi-jurisdiction provisioning controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, disturbance volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your disturbance ledger and domain list→Unit-rate, method and jurisdiction rule mappingWeek 1
02Representative prior closure estimates→Disturbance ingestion, reconciliation and the assembly baselineWeek 2
03Your documented unit rates and assumptions→Estimating-method mapping and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Survey, GIS and ledger assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Estimates you would not want re-costed→Assumption cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no closure plan may leave undated→Confidence scoring, variance routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07Named technical services reviewers→Technical services approval workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
The plan is drawn against elapsed weeks rather than slide space, and so week five doubles up here.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Closure workflow discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the reconciliation baselineW3Estimating workflow, confidence logic and approval controlsW4Evaluation suite, assumption checks and failure-mode testingW5Survey integration, a pilot domain set and targeted correctionsW6One revision cycle run under the technical services head, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandEach bar covers only the weeks its work is named in. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6When the estimate validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Mining AI agent
Build the reconciliation the estimate, the provision and the bond all rest on.
The regulatory estimate, the levy basis and the balance-sheet provision are built on different premises, and making them equal breaks one of them. Show us your disturbance ledger, your rate schedule and who signs — we will map the bridge and set the automation boundary.
