Resources

Plain-language guides to how it works

Self-contained explainers describing the framework, evidence tests, maturity model and methodology. They do not expose internal question dictionaries, workbooks or source files.

Guides

Understand the approach in your own time

Each guide links to the fuller explanation on the relevant page.

Framework overview

What the framework assesses, why it is integrated, and how diagnosis connects to improvement.

  • Eight management dimensions across the whole mine
  • Separate surface and underground pathways
  • Evidence effectiveness, not document counting
  • Findings that connect directly to prioritised actions
Read more

Eight-dimension guide

A short description of each management dimension and what it examines.

  • Governance, legal, safety and planning
  • Tailings and geotechnical integrity
  • Environment, closure and social performance
  • Evidence, monitoring and improvement
Read more

Maturity-model guide

How the five maturity levels are described and why they are not stars or certificates.

  • Foundational to Leading descriptors
  • What good evidence looks like at each level
  • Why arithmetic alone does not set the level
  • How critical gates can cap or withhold a result
Read more

Evidence-quality guide

The tests applied to evidence and what High, Medium, Low and None confidence mean.

  • Relevance, reliability, completeness and currency
  • Traceability, corroboration and sampling
  • Design, implementation and effectiveness evidence
  • How missing and contradictory evidence are handled
Read more

Methodology guide

The fifteen stages grouped into five phases, each closing with a decision gate.

  • Qualify and scope
  • Build the evidence base
  • Validate and assess
  • Decide, plan, implement and reassess
Read more

Surface versus underground

How the two pathways differ and why mixed operations are assessed on both.

  • Surface: slopes, haul roads, blasting, waste, water
  • Underground: ground support, ventilation, fire, egress
  • Common management, distinct results
  • Lowest applicable critical-control cap governs
Read more

Critical-gate explainer

How Gate R, Gate F and Gate D stop a strong average masking a serious failure.

  • Gate R — result withheld
  • Gate F — capped at Foundational
  • Gate D — capped at Developing
  • Why gates require competent moderation and evidence
Read more

90-day roadmap example

An illustrative view of how findings become an accountable, time-bound roadmap.

  • Findings prioritised by severity and dependency
  • Clear owners and target dates
  • Verification evidence defined up front
  • A twelve-month pathway to reassessment
Read more

Responsible-use note

What findings can and cannot be used for, and where specialist review is required.

  • Diagnosis, prioritisation and improvement planning
  • Not compliance, certification or a guarantee
  • Specialist and legal review where required
  • Reliance governed by engagement terms
Read more

Responsible-use note

These resources support understanding, diagnosis, prioritisation and improvement planning. They are not compliance guidance, certification, engineering advice or a guarantee of any outcome. Material technical and jurisdiction-specific questions require appropriately qualified specialists and local legal advisers. Any reliance on assessment findings is governed by the relevant engagement terms.

Read the full limitations

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.