Critical minerals reporting is tightening

The codes already think in probability

Here is what is easy to miss. These frameworks have always been probabilistic. A resource is classified as Inferred, Indicated or Measured by one thing: the level of geological confidence behind it. The whole system grades how sure you are.

So a model that outputs certainty is speaking the wrong language. The codes do not ask "where is the ore". They ask how confident you are, on what evidence, and where that confidence runs out. A deterministic answer cannot be classified. A probabilistic one can.

Auditability is now the test

The 2026 changes reward traceability. Regulators and Competent Persons want to see how an estimate was reached, not just the number at the end. That favours models whose reasoning can be inspected: what data went in, how uncertainty was handled, where the estimate is weak.

A black box that asserts an answer fails this test. A model that shows its probabilities, its inputs and its limits passes it. As reporting tightens, the second kind is the only kind that survives scrutiny.

Why this matters for investors

Tighter reporting is good for anyone deploying capital. It makes weak estimates harder to dress up and strong ones easier to trust.

The models that will hold up under the new codes are the ones already built around confidence rather than certainty. That is not a constraint to work around. It is the standard the whole industry is moving towards, and it is where honest modelling has been all along.

‍