Assemble the drill-hole lineage, the QA/QC record and the modifying-factor evidence behind a resource and reserve statement, mark what the pack does not support, and hold it for the Competent Person who consents.
A hole is logged, and its assays, QA/QC inserts and the extract behind the estimate are pulled with it.
02
A statement is prepared, and each figure is traced to the database extract current at the effective date.
Reason
03
A Table 1 section is opened by activity under JORC 2012, mandatory since 1 December 2013, and silent rows listed.
04
A reserve is converted, and each modifying factor is set beside the study, testwork or permit status behind it.
05
An announcement repeats a figure, and it is matched to the statement, the consent and any drilling since.
Decide
06
A prior statement is compared, and the movement is split by depletion, model, price and method, never netted.
07
A consent goes on file under NI 43-101 s.8.3 as consolidated 9 June 2023, with the document version read.
Out
08
A study level is set, and the technical report summary item set follows 17 CFR 229.601(b)(96), which scales.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent assembles the support; the assay copilot proves the data on import, and a named Competent Person consents to the figure.
Example workflow
One statement, data to consent
AgentHuman
1Estimate receivedDrill-hole database, assay certificates, model run and effective date
2Lineage assembledQA/QC records, Table 1 support, modifying-factor evidence and tenure status
3Pack draftedLineage map, silent Table 1 rows, open gaps and confidence
4Controls appliedSource-trace checks, code-section checks, consent-currency checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is reported at any of them — the agent is assembling, and the Competent Person's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionSplits at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the Competent Person to read.
Low confidence
Adds a peer-review geologist read first.
Competent Person review
The pack is held with its lineage, its silent rows and the confidence.
Accept · Annotate · Send to peer review
Accepted — pack complete▼
6Reporting record updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedLineage coverage, annotations, silent rows and post-statement corrections
Annotations
Every Competent Person annotation is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Classifying a resource or assigning a category.
Giving or withholding a Competent Person consent.
Deciding a Table 1 row is not applicable.
Setting the metallurgical recovery assumption.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Trace each reported figure to the database extract behind it.
✓Assemble the QA/QC record and the modifying-factor evidence.
✓Show which Table 1 rows the source pack leaves silent.
✓Split the movement since the last statement by cause, and hold the pack.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the consent.
Determining the effective date of an estimate.
Signing, dating or sealing a technical report.
Judging whether a person meets the experience test.
Changes to code mapping or reporting thresholds.
Example output
One reported figure, annotated
Everything the agent assembles is attached to the record it was drawn from.
Reserve pack output · single depositIllustrative example
Deposit
Reported line
Effective date
Database extract
Confidence
Responsible person
Open-pit gold deposit
Indicated Resource carried into the annual statement
30 June 2026
Signed-off model run
91%
Named Competent Person and organisation
As receivedTaken from the drill-hole database and the signed model run — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
Evidence assembledAssay certificatesQA/QC insert resultsSurvey and collar file
What supports this lineIt traces to the extract at the effective date — the line the Competent Person weighs.
ActionAcceptAnnotateSend to peer review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the pack picks up a peer read before it reaches the Competent Person.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every reported figureFrom the drill-hole database
03Assembly
Assemble from the record
Draw on the extract at the effective date, the QA/QC record and the studies on file.
01Approved path
The Competent Person carries it
Routine lineage, Table 1 support and cross-references arrive already assembled.
02Human review
Send review to the thin support
Silent rows and low-confidence packs are marked, so the Competent Person starts where the support is thinnest.
04Build an evidence trail
The figure, the drill data beneath it and the person who consented stay on the statement.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
A statement-level lineage-coverage figure can read complete while a few deposits carry almost all of the unsupported rows. Nestack reports the unsupported-figure rate by deposit, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Deposits inherited by acquisition
8.4%
3.7×
Review
First-time reserve conversions
6.7%
2.9×
Review
Underground extensions at depth
3.6%
1.6×
Watch
Established open-pit models
1.6%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: unsupported-figure-rate lift vs. established open-pit baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Nothing closes without a new case
The loop shuts when the unsupported figure is a regression case. That suite is what the next statement prepared is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Unsupported-figure rate rises in a deposit.
02Diagnose
The tonne that was reported before the assay behind it was reconciled is read back until one cause is left.
03Improve
Any change goes out numbered, with the figures that caused it attached.
04Verify
One statement case still failing is enough to hold the release back.
05Learn
One case joins the suite, one line joins the estimation record.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next statement is prepared 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, assembly workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Reporting workflow discovery and boundary work.
02Database and model-source assessment.
03Code-section, Table 1 and consent-record mapping.
04Extract ingestion and lineage tracing.
05Evidence assembly and pack logic.
06Confidence scoring and gap routing.
07Competent Person review workflow.
08Resource-model and document integration.
09Lineage and modifying-factor cases.
10Guardrails and consent controls.
11Estimate-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 deposit, one codeProductionProduction reporting systemsAdvancedMultiple deposits / codes
Introduced at Pilot
Assembly to your data and code✓✓✓
Competent Person review✓✓✓
Lineage-completeness baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by deposit—✓✓
Review workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Resource-model integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-code disclosure rules——✓
Multi-stage technical review——✓
High deposit count——✓
Multi-code disclosure controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction 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 drill-hole database and model outputs→Extract ingestion and lineage tracingWeek 1
02Representative past statements→Assembly baseline, evidence mapping and source bindingWeek 2
03Your code mapping and Table 1 practice→Code-section, Table 1 and consent-record mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Database and model-source assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Statements you would not want re-opened→Reconciliation cases and the evaluation suiteWeek 4
06What no consent may cover→Confidence scoring, gap routing, guardrails and review controlsWeek 3
07Named Competent Persons to read packs→Competent Person review 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
Each band covers the weeks its own phase really needs, and that is why week five holds two of them.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Reporting workflow discovery, code mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the assembly baselineW3Assembly workflow, confidence logic and review controlsW4Evaluation suite, lineage checks and failure-mode testingW5Document integration, pilot deposits and targeted correctionsW6One reporting cycle run under the Competent Person, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA bar covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6Once the statement validates, Agent Care assumes the running agent.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Mining AI agent
Build a reserve-reporting agent around the Competent Person's consent.
Show us your drill-hole database, your last statement and the people who consent. A named Competent Person carries every reported figure, and this is the page our geological assay copilot defers to when it says so.
