Getting to Know Your Project

• What's your role today and which other roles on your team will be directly involved in evaluating metallurgical testwork? Options: Metallurgical Engineer, Processing Plant Manager, Project Director, Owner / Executive, Lender / Financial Advisor, EPC / Engineering Lead, Procurement, Other
• Project name and mine location (country / deposit) — please include any shorthand you use so our team recognizes it.
• Which project stage best describes where you are today? Options: Scoping / Concept, Pre-feasibility, Feasibility, FEED / Detailed design, Procurement / Construction, Commissioning / Ramp-up
• What mineral commodity and target throughput are you evaluating for the processing plant?
• Do you have a target recovery and concentrate grade that lenders expect, or is that still being defined? Options: Target recovery and grade defined, Recovery defined, grade TBD, Grade defined, recovery TBD, Not yet defined
• When do you need a bankable flowsheet and equipment CAPEX estimate in hand? Options: < 3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, 12–18 months, > 18 months

Are We Counting on Faith or Facts?

• Are you comfortable specifying multi‑million dollar equipment based on vendor catalog specs rather than testwork on your actual ore? Options: Yes, confident, Somewhat uneasy, No — that's a major concern
• What metallurgical data or testwork do you already have (select all that apply)? Options: Head assays / basic chemistry, Bench flotation tests, Locked-cycle or closed-circuit tests, Pilot-plant runs, Mineralogy / QEMSCAN, Grinding / comminution work (SAG/Bond), Variability studies, No data yet
• How representative are those samples of the variability you expect in the feed (e.g., domain differences, weathering, blend scenarios)? Options: Highly representative, Partially representative, Poorly representative, We don't know yet
• Describe a past instance where equipment performance or flowsheet design failed to meet expectations for your ore — what happened and what were the downstream consequences?
• How confident is your team that current process models capture grind-response, reagent sensitivity, and middlings behavior for this ore? Options: Very confident, Somewhat confident, Low confidence, Not confident at all
• Which specific test results or evidence would shift you from 'uneasy' to 'comfortable' about ordering equipment? Options: Locked-cycle pilot on bulk sample, Multiple repeat bench tests with reagent optimization, Third-party validated mass balance, Pilot plus site trials, Clear scaling methodology + uncertainty bounds

If This Falls Short, Who Pays the Price?

• If the plant misses recovery by ~5 percentage points, who in your organization faces the toughest consequences? Options: Project Director, Owner / Executive, Metallurgical Lead, Operations Manager, Finance / Lender relations, Not sure
• Can you quantify the impact of a 1% recovery change on revenue or NPV (USD per year or % NPV)?
• How would a delayed production start or underperformance affect lender covenants, drawdowns, or project milestones? Options: Severe (risk of covenant breach), Moderate (penalties/delays), Minor (manageable), No lending in place yet
• Have lenders or owners specified acceptance criteria tied to flowsheet performance (formal or informal)? Options: Formal criteria defined, Discussed but not formalized, No criteria, Unsure
• When things previously went wrong on similar projects, how were they typically resolved? Options: Vendor warranty / replacement, Additional CAPEX / retrofit, Process rework and further testwork, Contract renegotiation, Other
• How does the prospect of that risk make you feel as a decision‑maker (e.g., sleepless nights, cautious optimism, manageable concern)?

Who Holds the Stamp?

• Are all stakeholders required for a decision already engaged, or are critical parties missing from the conversation? Options: All engaged, Some missing, Key stakeholders absent, Unsure
• List the decision roles and who currently fills them (owner rep, project director, lender technical advisor, EPC lead, operations, procurement).
• Which parties will require specific deliverables for sign-off (select all that apply)? Options: Lender technical due diligence, Owner technical committee, EPC design basis, Independent engineering review, Regulatory / permitting submissions, Procurement / fixed‑price requirements
• What do your lenders explicitly consider 'bankable'—locked-cycle pilot report, third‑party verification, conservative scale factors, or something else? Options: Locked-cycle pilot with stats, Third-party validation report, Conservative engineering scale factors, Plant demonstration, Combination of above, Unsure
• Who legally owns the samples we would test, and are there limits on returning, retaining, or destroying material after testing? Options: Client retains ownership, Lab retains for records, Shared custody with agreement, Restricted by permit, Unsure
• What level of vendor documentation do procurement and lenders require to place long‑lead orders (P&IDs, performance curves from pilot tests, vendor as‑tested machine performance)? Options: Full P&ID + tested curves, Vendor datasheets + pilot summary, Independent validation only, Varies by item / lender

Tell Us About the Things You’re Building Around

• What hidden site or operational constraints are shaping equipment selection (power limits, water availability, tailings capacity, structural restrictions)?
• Are there integration constraints with upstream/downstream systems, existing control architectures, or ERP that we should design around? Options: Major integration required, Minor integration, No integration needed, Unsure
• What environmental or permitting limits could narrow acceptable flowsheet or equipment choices (e.g., water reuse mandates, dry-stack tailings, emissions caps)?
• How reliable are local supply chains and fabrication yards for long‑lead items—have delays impacted past schedules? Options: Very reliable, Occasional delays, Frequently delayed, Unknown
• Which on-site capabilities do you already have for commissioning and maintenance (local spares, trained electricians, millwrights, instrument technicians)? Options: Comprehensive in-house team, Basic in-house capability + contractors, Rely on external vendors, None / unknown
• What spare parts, training, or service guarantees would you require to accept equipment delivery and commissioning? Options: Local spares inventory, Vendor commissioning team on-site, Remote commissioning support, Operator training & O&M manuals, Guaranteed lead times for spares

What Would ‘Bankable’ Actually Feel Like?

• If 'bankable' could be experienced today, what would you hear, see, and have signed off—beyond just a number on a page?
• List the concrete acceptance criteria (recovery %, concentrate grade %, throughput, variability limits, reagent regime) that would satisfy your lenders.
• Which measurement approaches and statistical confidence levels would lenders accept for performance claims (select all that apply)? Options: Locked-cycle results with statistical analysis, Multiple pilot repeats with control charts, Third-party assay verification, Conservative engineering scale factors, Single representative pilot run
• Do your lenders expect a plant‑scale demonstration, or is a robust pilot plus scaling methodology sufficient? Options: Pilot + scaling acceptable, Plant-scale demo required, Depends on lender / tranche, Unsure
• Beyond test numbers, which supporting evidences move internal stakeholders fastest—reference installations, vendor track record, instrumentation logs, or operational warranties? Options: Reference installations, Vendor track record & case studies, Real-time instrumentation logs, Performance warranties & lead-time guarantees, Third-party independent report
• On a scale of 1–10, how confident are you that current proposals can be packaged into a bankable submission within your timeline? Options: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Can We Define a Pilot That Removes Your Biggest Fear?

• What single outcome from a pilot program would remove your biggest fear about committing to equipment and CAPEX?
• What minimum sample mass and domain coverage will you commit to for a pilot that you would trust for scaling (provide kg/tonnes and number of domains)?
• Which pilot scope elements are essential for you (select all that apply)? Options: Locked-cycle flotation, Grinding throughput mapping, Reagent optimization and dosing, Dewatering and concentrate handling trials, Mass balance closure and reconciliation, Mineralogy-led liberation studies
• Who should own each part of the pilot program (testing, QA, reporting, logistics) — our lab, your team, an independent QA, or another party? Options: Host lab (vendor), Client team, Third‑party independent QA, Shared responsibilities, Other
• Which timeline for pilot completion aligns with your decision gates? Options: < 6 weeks, 6–12 weeks, 12–24 weeks, > 24 weeks
• What objective acceptance criteria will you apply to greenlight equipment procurement after pilot results?

Are Your Samples Truly the Story of Your Ore?

• Are the samples you plan to send representative of the full ore variability, or are they biased toward the best / most accessible material? Options: Representative, Partially representative, Biased toward best material, Not sure
• How were the samples collected and prepared—do you have documented chain-of-custody and sample splitting protocols we should follow? Options: Full chain-of-custody and splits, Partial documentation, No formal records, Unsure
• What mass of sample can you provide and can you commit a reserve quantity for repeats or validation? Options: < 10 kg, 10–100 kg, 100–1000 kg, > 1000 kg
• Are there regulatory, customs, or hazardous-material restrictions that will affect shipping or handling of your samples? Options: No restrictions, Minor paperwork, Significant restrictions, Unsure
• Do you require sample return after testing, or is destruction / retention by lab acceptable? Options: Return all remaining sample, Destroy after testing, Return partial reserve, No preference
• Do you have internal QA standards (standards, duplicates, reference materials) we should apply during testing? Options: Detailed QA standards provided, Basic QA requested, No formal QA, Unsure

If We Partner, How Will We Stay Aligned?

• If test results diverge from expectations, how do you prefer disagreements be resolved (steering committee, independent review, scope change, commercial adjustment)? Options: Steering committee escalation, Independent third‑party review, Renegotiate scope / commercial terms, Other
• Who will be the day‑to‑day owners on your side for technical decisions, procurement approvals, and commercial sign‑off?
• What cadence of technical updates would you prefer during pilot and flowsheet development? Options: Weekly, Biweekly, Monthly, Milestone-based, Ad-hoc as issues arise
• Which KPIs do you want tracked on progress reports (select all that matter)? Options: Recovery %, Concentrate grade %, Throughput (t/hr), Mass balance closure, Reagent consumption, Equipment availability / downtime
• Which commercial terms are non‑negotiable for you at this stage (payment milestones, warranty terms, lead‑time guarantees, IP ownership)?
• If the pilot meets acceptance, what is your typical decision window to move to procurement? Options: Immediate (within weeks), 1–3 months, 3–6 months, > 6 months

Ready to Pick a First Step?

• If there was one small, low‑risk next step we could agree on right now, what would it be?
• Which of these next steps would you prefer we propose first (select all that apply)? Options: Alignment kickoff workshop, Sample submission & chain‑of‑custody plan, Preliminary bench test package, Full locked‑cycle pilot proposal with timeline, Draft commercial term sheet / SOW
• Who must attend the initial alignment kickoff from your side (names or roles)?
• Which date windows in the next 4 weeks work for a virtual kickoff?
• What would success look like from that first step in 30 days (deliverables, decisions, or cleared risks)?
• Are there any hard constraints or 'deal breakers' we should know about before drafting a formal pilot scope?

Start With Your Story: Help Us See Your Project

• Briefly describe the project, current phase, and the decision that has triggered a need for a bankable flowsheet.
• Which of the following best describes your role on this project? Options: Metallurgical Engineer, Processing Plant Manager, Project Director, Owner/Operator, Consultant/Owner's Engineer, Other
• Who holds the final buy/no‑buy decision for equipment and flowsheet acceptance? Options: Project Director, CFO/Finance, Owner’s Technical Committee, Lender/Financier sign‑off required, Joint Venture Partner, Undecided/Other
• What is your target date for having a bankable flowsheet (document suitable for financing)? Options: < 3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, 12–18 months, 18+ months
• Who currently owns the physical samples and associated chain‑of‑custody documentation? Options: We own and control samples, Third‑party lab holds samples, Samples split between parties, Samples not yet collected, Other

If Your Plant Could Speak, What Would It Complain About?

• What single operational issue (e.g., lost recovery, inconsistent grade, throughput shortfall) keeps you up at night?
• How far off target are you on average for the project's key metric (recovery or grade)? Options: On target, 0.5–1% below target, 1–3% below target, 3–5% below target, >5% below target, Unknown/unmeasured
• Which unit operations repeatedly underperform or cause headaches? Options: Crushing, Primary grinding, Secondary grinding/classification, Flotation, Gravity concentration, Dewatering/Thickeners, Reagent handling, Other
• How frequently do process upsets materially impact production? Options: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Rarely/never, Unknown
• Tell us about the last big upset or failure (what happened, what failed, and the operational and financial impact).

What Does Your Metallurgical Record Really Say?

• How confident are you that historical metallurgical data reflects the ore that will feed the plant over the life of mine? Options: Very confident, Somewhat confident, Unsure, Not confident, Data is insufficient
• When were representative samples last collected from the deposit or stockpile? Options: Within 3 months, 3–12 months, 1–3 years, >3 years, Not yet collected
• Which of these testwork and analytical packages are available for your ore? Options: Bottleroll/column tests, Locked cycle tests (LCT), Bench flotation, Pilot‑plant runs, Mineralogical (QEMSCAN/SEM), Comminution (JK/SME tests), Mass balance and metallurgical accounting, None of the above
• Are there known inconsistencies or data gaps in the dataset (assays, head grades, mass balance)? Please summarize.
• Do you have mineralogy reports that tie recovery mechanisms to specific mineral phases? Options: Comprehensive mineralogy exists, Partial mineralogy available, Only basic petrography, No mineralogy reports

Where Has Testwork Let You Down?

• Have any previous test programs produced results that could not be scaled to plant performance—if so, what was the disconnect? Options: Yes—bench overestimated recovery vs plant, Yes—pilot showed different grind response, No—tests scaled well, Unknown/Not assessed
• Which scale of testing previously failed to predict plant behaviour? Options: Benchscale (single cells), Locked‑cycle bench, Mini‑pilot, Full pilot, Multiple scales failed, No failures recorded
• Were past tests run on run‑of‑mine, designer composites, or narrow core zones? Please specify sample origin and why that choice was made. Options: Run‑of‑mine, Designer composite, Specific lithology/core zone, Tailings/Stockpile, Not recorded
• How were scale‑up assumptions justified (e.g., performance curves, mass balance reconciliation, replicates)?
• Who executed the previous testwork programs and how would you rate their documentation and traceability? Options: Experienced OEM/vendor pilot plant (well documented), Independent laboratory (good), In‑house lab (variable), Academic/short program (limited), Unknown/poor documentation

Constraints That Won’t Move — and Those You Can

• If budget, footprint and permits were frozen today, which single constraint do you expect would break the project?
• Please select the hard constraints that cannot be relaxed. Options: Grid power ceiling (kW/MW), Water availability, Discharge/effluent limits, Site footprint, Emissions/permits, Capital ceiling (max CAPEX), Project schedule/deadlines
• Which constraints are negotiable or have flexibility (e.g., reagent choices, phasing, short‑term CAPEX tradeoffs)? Options: Reagent regime, Phased commissioning, Temporary mobile equipment, Increased OPEX to reduce CAPEX, Additional sampling before final design, None—everything fixed
• What utilities and site services are guaranteed and what is their current capacity (power, water, steam, compressed air)? Options: Power sufficient, Power marginal, Water sufficient, Water marginal, Other utilities limited, Unknown
• Is there physical space and site access to host pilot equipment, and what restrictions apply (e.g., washdown, height, HV access)? Options: Sufficient space and access available, Limited space—requires compact pilot, No suitable space on site, Offsite pilot only

If We Could Eliminate One Risk, Which Would You Pick?

• Which single technical risk, if removed, would most improve project economics or lender confidence?
• How tolerant is the project to a recovery shortfall—what's the maximum acceptable drop before NPV or financing is jeopardized? Options: <0.5% drop acceptable, 0.5–1% acceptable, 1–2% acceptable, 2–3% acceptable, >3% unacceptable
• Which risk categories worry you most (rank or select up to three): ore variability, scale‑up uncertainty, equipment delivery, reagent supply, permits, commissioning support? Options: Ore variability, Scale‑up uncertainty, Equipment delivery delays, Reagent supply/logistics, Permitting/Environmental constraints, Commissioning/expertise at site
• Do you have contingency budget or schedule buffers today, and if so, please quantify (% or weeks/months). Options: >20% budget or >6 months, 10–20% budget or 3–6 months, 5–10% budget or 1–3 months, No meaningful buffer, Unknown
• If we could deliver a single deliverable that meaningfully de‑risked the project, which would you prioritize (choose one)? Options: Locked‑cycle mass balances with error bars, Pilot run demonstrating nameplate recovery, Vendor performance guarantees tied to samples, Independent validation report for lenders, Clear equipment lead‑time and spares plan

How Will You Know We've Built a Bankable Flowsheet?

• What specific evidence would make financiers and your owners call the flowsheet 'bankable'?
• Which of these deliverables must be included in the bankable package? Options: Locked‑cycle test report with mass balance, Pilot mass balance and scaled performance, Equipment sizing and vendor performance curves, Risk register with mitigation plans, Process guarantees and acceptance tests, Costed CAPEX and OPEX estimate tied to performance
• What statistical or confidence criteria do you require for recovery and throughput estimates (e.g., number of replicates, confidence interval)? Options: High—multiple replicates and CI, Moderate—some replicates with reconciliation, Basic—single representative test with justification, No set criteria yet
• What scale of piloting would satisfy your stakeholders: bench locked‑cycle, mini‑pilot, or full pilot plant? Please explain why. Options: Bench locked‑cycle, Mini‑pilot (continuous), Full pilot plant (representative throughput), Combination phased approach, Undecided—need advice
• Who in your organization will formally sign off on the bankable flowsheet, and who needs to be kept informed? Options: Project Director signs off, Owner's Technical Committee, External lender/independent engineer sign‑off required, Multiple signatories (list), Undecided

Practical Next Steps — Samples, Tests, and Owners

• If we started tomorrow, what's the single most important thing you could provide to accelerate validation (sample set, data pack, decision owner, funding)?
• How many sample types/zones can you supply and in what approximate total mass for pilot work? Options: Multiple zones, >500 kg total, Multiple zones, 100–500 kg, Single zone, 50–100 kg, Small bench samples only (<50 kg), Samples not available yet
• Do your samples have full chain‑of‑custody, labelled composites, and primary assays available? Options: Complete documentation exists, Partial documentation, Assays only, no custody, No documentation
• Who will be the day‑to‑day technical liaison for test planning and who handles commercial/contract sign‑offs?
• What is your preferred timeline to begin pilot testing and deliver initial results? Options: Start immediately (weeks), Start in 1–3 months, Start in 3–6 months, Start in 6–12 months, No firm timeline
• Is there anything else about site, logistics, or governance we should know that would affect a pilot program or data validation?

Start with Your Project in One Line

• In one sentence, describe your project and what a 'bankable flowsheet' would mean for your team.
• What is the project's current stage? Options: Scoping / Concept, Pre-feasibility (PFS), Feasibility (FS), Detailed design / EPCM, Procurement, Construction, Commissioning / Start-up, Operation
• What is the primary commodity and the dominant ore/mineralogy we should design for? Options: Copper – sulfide, Copper – oxide, Gold – free-milling, Gold – refractory, Polymetallic (Cu-Au-Ag-Pb-Zn), Iron ore, Lithium, Other (please specify)
• What target throughput and headline recovery/grade numbers do you need the flowsheet to achieve for financing?
• Who on your team must sign-off on the flowsheet and the CAPEX estimate for the financing to proceed? Options: Project Director, Metallurgical Engineer / Process Lead, Operations Manager / Plant Manager, CFO / Finance, Owner / CEO, Lender's technical advisor, Independent consulting engineer, Other
• By when does the bankable flowsheet need to be delivered to meet your financing milestones? Options: Within 1 month, 1–3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, 12+ months, Unsure / to be determined

Is Your 'Bankable' Flowsheet Aspirational or Verifiable?

• How confident are you that the flowsheet in your feasibility will survive real ore variability and lender scrutiny? Options: Very confident, Somewhat confident, Doubtful, Not confident, Unsure
• What acceptance criteria has the lender, investor, or internal owner specified for a flowsheet to be called 'bankable'? Options: Pilot-scale runs on representative ore, Statistical demonstration of recovery across variability, Independent lab validation, Mass-balance closure within specified tolerance, Equipment performance guarantees, Not specified, Other (please specify)
• Have you previously run pilot or large-scale testwork on this ore? If so, what formats were used (bench, continuous pilot, locked-cycle, etc.)? Options: No prior testwork, Bench-scale only, Locked-cycle bench, Continuous pilot plant (small-scale), Demonstration plant, Multiple of the above
• How representative are the samples used in prior testwork of the expected mine feed (locations, lithologies, weathering, etc.)? Options: Highly representative (statistically sampled), Mostly representative with known gaps, Poorly representative, No representative sampling done, Unsure
• What specific gaps or uncertainties from prior testwork keep you from being confident today?
• What minimum documentation or deliverables will you require with any pilot program (report format, raw data, mass balances, QA/QC, chain of custody)? Options: Full test report + raw data + mass balance, Executive summary + key datasets, Raw data with QA/QC, Independent verification statement, Other (please specify)

Where Recovery Slips Through the Cracks

• Which single process step worries you most as the likely source of a multi‑percentage‑point recovery shortfall? Options: Comminution / Grind control, Classification / Cyclones, Flotation circuit design, Reagent regime / chemistry, Gravity concentration, Dewatering / tailings handling, Feed variability / blending, Other (please specify)
• Tell the story of a past event where recovery or throughput fell short—what happened, what was root cause, and how long did it take to recover?
• What operating constraints at your site limit flowsheet choices (water, power, footprint, environmental permits, workforce skill, tailings capacity)? Options: Water scarcity / reuse constraints, Limited power availability, Restricted plant footprint, Environmental permit constraints, Tailings capacity or TSF limitations, Limited skilled workforce, Other (please specify)
• How tightly can your current operations hold key control variables (P80, pH, redox, aeration, residence time)? Options: Tight – within narrow band, Moderate – occasional drift, Loose – frequent excursions, Unknown / not monitored
• What instrumentation, sampling cadence, or QC steps would you accept as evidence that the flowsheet is performing as designed during ramp‑up? Options: Online sensors + alarms, Daily lab assays, Locked‑cycle confirmations, Independent third‑party assays, Statistic-based monitoring plan, Other (please specify)
• Are there historical geometallurgical or variability datasets (drill cores, composites, plant tails) we can review to map risk? Please list availability and format.

If Five Points More Recovery Were Real, What Changes?

• If you could reliably deliver +5 percentage points recovery, what decision would that unlock for the project (finance, mine plan, cut‑off grade, saleability)?
• Roughly, what magnitude of NPV/IRR or EBITDA improvement would +5% recovery represent for this project? Options: <5% improvement, 5–15% improvement, 15–30% improvement, 30%+ improvement, Unsure / needs modelling
• Would higher recovery allow you to change mining or processing strategy (e.g., lower cut‑off, blend lower grade, increase throughput)? Options: Yes – change cut‑off grade, Yes – increase throughput, Yes – change blending strategy, No material change, Unsure
• Beyond dollars, what non‑financial outcomes matter most if recovery improves (permitting ease, community impacts, workforce stability, risk profile)? Options: Easier financing / lender confidence, Stronger permits / regulator support, Improved community outcomes, Lower operational risk, Longer mine life, Other (please specify)
• How would you operationally verify during ramp‑up that the plant is delivering that +5% (specific KPIs and cadence)? Options: Sustained recovery over X days, Mass balance closure repeatedly, Throughput at or above nameplate, Reagent consumption within budget, Independent sign-off by TEV/IE, Other (please specify)
• What internal economic thresholds would allow you to re‑allocate capital or change scope based on improved recovery (example: reduce reserve stockpiles, defer equipment)?

Who's Holding the Keys — and Who's Quietly Influencing Them?

• If the project had to pass lender due diligence tomorrow, whose approval do you think would be the most difficult to secure? Options: Process / Metallurgy lead, Project Director, CFO / Finance, Lender's technical advisor, Operations Manager, External shareholders / owner's board, Other (please specify)
• Please identify the internal and external stakeholders we should engage for technical and commercial sign‑off (names/roles and decision authority).
• Which stakeholders prioritize schedule over recovery, and which prioritize recovery over schedule—how do those tensions usually play out? Options: Recovery prioritized, Schedule prioritized, CAPEX prioritized, Balanced, Not sure / varies by stakeholder
• What information or evidence convinces your lenders or technical advisors fastest (pilot data, reference plant visits, vendor guarantees, independent validation)? Options: Pilot data (multi‑run), Reference site visits, Vendor performance guarantees, Independent lab validation, Third‑party PE report, Other (please specify)
• How do you prefer decisions and technical tradeoffs to be surfaced—detailed technical memos, visual dashboards, joint workshops, or concise decision packs? Options: Joint technical workshops, Concise decision packs (1–2 pages), Live KPI dashboards, Detailed technical memos, Phone/video calls for alignment, Other (please specify)
• Are there known political or commercial influencers (off‑take partners, OEM relationships, legacy agreements) that could change the technical decision path? Options: Yes — off‑take / commercial, Yes — OEM or legacy supplier, No, Unsure / need to investigate

What Keeps You Up at Night If This Fails?

• If the flowsheet underperforms during or after commissioning, which single consequence would be hardest to recover from? Options: Loss of financing / covenant breach, Severe CAPEX overrun, Prolonged production shortfall, Environmental non‑compliance / fines, Irreversible reputational damage, Other (please specify)
• Do you already have contingency plans tied to specific failure modes (e.g., alternative reagent suites, grind adjustments, bypass circuits)? Options: Yes — detailed contingency plans, Yes — high‑level contingency, No — not yet, Under development
• What maximum schedule delay would put financing or the project deadline at risk? Options: <1 month, 1–3 months, 3–6 months, 6+ months, Depends on cause
• What level of CAPEX overrun would trigger a formal re‑evaluation of the project? Options: <5%, 5–10%, 10–20%, 20%+, Not defined
• What recovery shortfall (percentage points) would require immediate mitigation and reporting to lenders or owners? Options: ≥1 percentage point, ≥3 percentage points, ≥5 percentage points, ≥10 percentage points, Not defined
• Who would you call first for emergency technical support (internal team, vendor service, third‑party contractor)? Options: Internal process team, Vendor service / OEM, Third‑party specialists, Owner's maintenance team, Not sure / will decide as needed

What Would Make You Confident Enough to Pull the Trigger?

• What single piece of evidence would change your stance from 'we hope this works' to 'we can build this and sign the PO'?
• Which of the following would most increase your confidence in the design? Options: Multi‑run pilot on fully representative samples, Independent third‑party validation, On‑site visit to a comparable installation, Vendor performance guarantee tied to recovery, Detailed mass balance + sensitivity analysis, Other (please specify)
• What sample quantity and distribution do you require for a pilot program to be considered representative (kg, number of composites, horizons)? Options: <50 kg, 50–200 kg, 200–1000 kg, 1000+ kg, Unsure — need to discuss
• What is an acceptable timeline for a pilot program plus bankable report to support finance (from sample receipt to final deliverable)? Options: <1 month, 1–3 months, 3–6 months, 6+ months, Flexible / depends on scope
• Which vendor commitments are non‑negotiable for you before placing equipment orders? Options: Firm delivery dates for long‑lead items, Performance guarantees (recovery/throughput), Spare parts availability & lead times, On‑site commissioning support, Comprehensive documentation & training, Warranty and liability terms, Other (please specify)
• Would you be open to a staged commercial approach (pilot → conditional purchase order with milestones → final purchase)? Options: Yes — preferred, Maybe — if milestones clear, No — need single commitment

Realistic Next Steps — Small Bets to Reduce Big Risks

• If you had to pick three immediate actions that would materially de‑risk the flowsheet, what would they be?
• Which of these actions would you like our team to lead or own? Options: Sample collection & chain of custody coordination, Pilot program design and execution, Independent lab QA/QC and verification, Reference plant visits arrangement, Long‑lead item identification and early procurement, Lender / TEV briefing and documentation
• Are there regulatory, logistics, or site‑access constraints we must resolve prior to sample transport or pilot works (permits, customs, quarantine, shipping restrictions)?
• What cadence of communication and decision checkpoints would you prefer as we execute next steps? Options: Weekly status calls, Bi‑weekly, Monthly, Milestone-based updates only, Real‑time dashboard + ad‑hoc calls
• How soon should we schedule the first pilot run to meet your financing timeline? Options: Immediately (this month), Within 1–3 months, Within 3–6 months, 6+ months, Not yet decided
• Who will be the primary point of contact for scheduling, sample approvals, and technical clarifications (name, role, email)?

Project Snapshot — Help Us Get Up to Speed

• What's the project name, location, and current development stage (brief)?
• What's the target decision date for financing / FID for this project? Options: Within 3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, 12–24 months, 24+ months
• Who is the primary owner or decision-maker we should coordinate with? (name, role, preferred contact)
• Which stakeholders must sign off on the bankable flowsheet before financing (select all that apply)? Options: Project Director, Metallurgical Engineer, Owner's Engineer, Lender/Financier, Operations Manager, Procurement, Other
• How confident is your internal team in the current process design supporting the feasibility study? Options: High (within ±1–2% recovery), Moderate (±3–5%), Low (uncertain), No confidence yet

Are You Confident This Flowsheet Will Be Bankable?

• If a lender asked for a bankable flowsheet dossier today, could you hand it over and expect sign-off without major revisions? Options: Yes — ready, Almost — minor gaps, Not yet — significant gaps, Unsure
• Which lender or financier requirements are mandatory for your dossier (protocols, witness testing, uncertainty bands)? Options: Specific lab protocols (e.g., ISO), Mass balance validation, Repeatability/replicate tests, Independent third-party witness, Metallurgical contingency allowances, Other
• Have you defined numerical acceptance criteria for recovery, grade, variability envelopes, and CAPEX accuracy? Please summarize.
• Who will independently verify the flowsheet on the lender side (if any)? Options: Lender's technical advisor, Independent consulting metallurgist, Owner's engineer, No independent verifier planned, Other
• Which deliverables would give the lender the most confidence (select all that apply)? Options: Pilot plant report, Bench-scale data, Mass balance & comminution curves, Water/reagent balances, Equipment performance curves on ore, Test certificates / QA

Where Your Ore Has Surprised You (or Could)

• Tell us about the last time the ore behaved differently than expected — what happened and what did it cost?
• How well do your available samples represent the expected plant feed across geology and weathering zones? Options: Well-represented (>80%), Partially (50–80%), Poorly (<50%), Unknown
• Do you have defined variability domains and samples tied to each domain? Options: Yes — fully mapped, Partially mapped, No, but plan to, Not available
• How often do you observe significant shifts in head grade, mineralogy, or liberation during operations? Options: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Rarely/never
• When surprises occurred, which category best describes the root cause? Options: Chemical/reagent response, Grindability/comminution, Operational/handling, All of the above, Other
• Which specific sample or domain would you insist we include in pilot testing and why?

What Keeps You Up At Night About This Plant?

• If the plant misses target recovery by 3–5 percentage points, what are the pragmatic consequences for the project?
• Which failure modes concern you most today (pick all that apply)? Options: Under-recovery, Throughput shortfall, Rising reagent costs, Solids handling/dewatering, Equipment reliability, Commissioning delays, Other
• Which of those risks have you faced before, and how were they managed? Tell a short example.
• How tolerant is your economics to a recovery or grade shortfall (e.g., project still viable, marginal, or fails)? Options: Very tolerant, Moderately tolerant, Low tolerance, No tolerance — project fails
• Which de-risking measures would you prioritize to protect project value? Options: Expanded pilot program, Contingency in CAPEX, Phased commissioning/ramp-up, Alternate reagent strategies, Additional redundancy
• Who carries the most career or political risk if performance targets are missed? Options: Project Director, Metallurgical Lead, Operations Manager, CEO/Owner, Shared

How Have You Validated Performance So Far? (and What Felt Thin)

• Have you been making equipment and scope decisions based primarily on catalog data or on on-ore testwork? Options: Mostly catalog data, Catalog plus some on-ore tests, Comprehensive on-ore pilot & benchwork, Not sure / mixed
• What lab, bench, or pilot programs have been completed on your ore — scope, sample mass, and headline outcomes?
• Were those tests independently witnessed, repeated, or performed under multiple regimes? Options: Witnessed and repeated, Some repeats but not witnessed, Single tests only, No formal QA/QC
• Did vendors provide performance curves specifically on your ore or only generic catalog data? Options: Vendor-specific on ore, Vendor generic catalog, No vendor data, Mixed
• What key unknowns would you like a pilot program to resolve (select up to three)? Options: Floatability/recovery behaviour, Grind size sensitivity, Middlings / recycle behavior, Dewatering/thickening rates, Slurry rheology and handling, Reagent regimes / dosing
• Approximately how much sample mass can you make available for a pilot program? Options: >2000 kg, 500–2000 kg, 100–500 kg, <100 kg, Unknown yet

If Everything Went Right, What Would That Unlock?

• Imagine the plant achieves design recovery and throughput — what strategic decisions would that enable you to take?
• What are your numerical targets and acceptable minimums for recovery and concentrate grade?
• What nameplate throughput and ramp-up timeline do you expect for commissioning to reach design capacity? Options: Immediate to nameplate, 3–6 months ramp, 6–12 months ramp, 12+ months ramp
• What CAPEX and OPEX accuracy bands are required for your feasibility decision (select one)? Options: ±5%, ±10%, ±15%, ±20% or greater, Not sure
• If targets are met, what commercial milestones (e.g., financing, construction start) follow and in what timeframe?
• Which pieces of evidence would most convince you this supplier will deliver — choose top two? Options: On-ore pilot data, Installed references with similar ore, Independent metallurgical endorsement, Financial guarantees / bonds, Vendor warranties & spare parts availability

What Would Make You Say Yes — Today?

• What's the single non-negotiable item that would make you sign a pilot and equipment agreement this week?
• Which procurement pathway are you most likely to use for the plant? Options: EPC turnkey, Equipment supply + owner erection, Engineering + equipment packages, Other
• What payment and milestone structure would be acceptable to you (select one)? Options: Standard deposit + progress payments, Milestone + commissioning holdback, Performance-linked payments, Lease/finance required, Other
• How critical are lead times and delivery windows to your schedule? Options: Critical — project-driven, Important but flexible, Not critical
• Which commercial or technical guarantees would you expect from a supplier (select all that apply)? Options: Recovery guarantee, Performance bond / warranty, Defined spare parts list, Commissioning & ramp-up support, All of the above
• Who else must be present to finalize a mutual commit and when are they available?

Logistics, Samples and Next Steps — Let’s Make It Real

• If we agreed on scope today, could you ship representative samples and mobilize approvals within your stated timetable? Options: Yes — ready to ship, Yes — need minor prep, 1–3 months required, Longer / not possible now
• Who owns the samples and who will sign chain-of-custody / shipment documentation? Options: Mine / Owner, Contract lab, Third-party custodian, Other
• Are there export, customs, quarantine, or hazardous-material constraints we must plan for? Options: No issues anticipated, Some paperwork required, Hazardous classification — special handling, Unknown / need to check
• Do you require an NDA, material transfer agreement, or witnessed chain-of-custody before testing begins? Options: NDA required, Material transfer agreement, Witnessing by owner required, No paperwork needed, Other
• Do you have preferred pilot start dates or blackout windows we should avoid? Please list dates or ranges.
• Who should be our operational point of contact for sample logistics, technical clarifications, and receiving reports? (name, role, contact)
• What would you like as the immediate next step after this discovery conversation? Options: Draft pilot scope & quote, Schedule site/sample pickup, Technical deep-dive workshop, Send reference case studies, Other