The framework
An integrated diagnostic and improvement architecture with separate surface and underground pathways, evidence confidence, coverage controls and critical-control gates.
Why integrated
Operational, safety, environmental, social and closure controls fail together far more often than they fail alone. A whole-mine view surfaces the connections a siloed review misses.
Architecture
Eight dimensions
Each dimension examines how reliably controls are designed, implemented, monitored and improved - not simply whether documents exist.
Examines whether accountability for critical outcomes is clear, whether leadership sets and tests risk decisions, and whether contractors operate to equivalent control standards. Reviews how change is authorised and how issues escalate to the board.
Reviews the systems a mine uses to identify applicable obligations, assign ownership and track action. It assesses management capability, not legal conclusions — it does not issue a compliance opinion.
Assesses how principal hazards are governed, how critical controls are verified in the field, and how emergency readiness and occupational health are managed. Includes worker participation and speak-up.
Examines whether material controls are built into mine plans and whether what happens in the field reconciles with design intent and authorised change. Focuses on the plan-to-execution link.
Reviews governance and evidence for tailings facilities, geotechnical stability, ground conditions and mine-waste hazards. Material engineering conclusions remain the domain of appropriately competent specialists.
Assesses management of environmental aspects — water, emissions, land and biodiversity — alongside incident response, progressive rehabilitation and closure planning and provisioning.
Reviews how the mine identifies and engages stakeholders, manages grievances and commitments, addresses human-rights and conflict risk, and plans for social transition through closure.
Examines whether the mine's own evidence base is controlled, current and reproducible, whether monitoring drives action, and whether improvement actions are closed and shown to be effective.
Two pathways
The hazards and controls differ fundamentally, so each pathway carries its own 48-question set.
Five maturity levels
Absent or reactive
Inconsistent
Repeatable
Monitored
Anticipatory
Protection against false comfort
Arithmetic is diagnostic. Three mechanisms stop a strong average masking a serious, unresolved weakness.
When a critical control is unverified or a serious risk is unresolved, the overall level is withheld rather than reported.
A material critical-control failure caps the overall level at Foundational regardless of the arithmetic average.
A significant but less severe critical-control weakness caps the overall level at Developing.
Gate assignment and release require competent moderation and evidence. A material critical-control failure caps or withholds the overall level regardless of performance elsewhere.
Controls and principles
High, Medium, Low or None describes the strength of the assessment basis — not the quality of the mine.
Coverage controls limit conclusions when applicable questions lack usable responses and evidence.
A question is only Not Applicable when it genuinely does not apply. Missing applicable evidence is not N/A.
Tests implementation and sustained effectiveness against a frozen baseline; document completion alone does not prove improvement.
Local legal and regulatory context is layered over the core framework; it does not replace qualified local legal advice.
Framework versions, question sets and scoring rules are controlled so results are reproducible and comparable over time.
A question is only Not Applicable when it genuinely does not apply to the operation. Missing applicable evidence is not N/A - it reduces confidence and may cap or withhold the result.
Material technical and jurisdiction-dependent conclusions require appropriately competent specialists and qualified local legal advisers.
Next step
Walk through an illustrative assessment, or discuss how the framework would apply to your operation.
Independent advisory work only. Conclusions are limited to the agreed scope, evidence and sampling, and may require specialist and jurisdiction-specific review. This is not an official rating, certification, legal-compliance opinion or guarantee of future performance.