Framework logic
The framework is integrated with GEOAI and combines Potential Score, Confidence Score, and Opportunity Score with technical, territorial, regulatory, environmental, and economic analysis.
Exposure to a project may increase as new evidence reduces uncertainty. The same structure allows an opportunity to be paused, returned to an earlier stage, or closed when its supporting rationale is no longer sufficient.
Origination gates
G0 - Regional Screening
BTR selects regions, geological settings, and minerals for investigation based on data availability and quality, historical evidence, regional geology, and strategic fit. At this stage, an individual target does not necessarily exist.
G1 - GEOAI Target
GEOAI processes the available data and identifies areas with sufficient characteristics for additional analysis. A target is a qualified investigation hypothesis, not proof of mineralization, a resource, a reserve, or economic viability.
G2 - Desktop Review
Specialists review geological context, consistency across layers, evidence quality, prior studies, and inconsistencies that may change the initial classification. This review complements algorithmic analysis before investment is expanded.
G3 - Opportunity Screening
Technically consistent targets are assessed from territorial, land, mineral-rights, regulatory, environmental, logistics, and economic perspectives. Opportunity Score helps determine whether deeper diligence is justified even when geological signals are relevant.
G4 - Land Intelligence
Analysis moves from the geospatial target to the actual territorial configuration. BTR examines properties, land concentration, records, access, and infrastructure and, when applicable, identifies priority areas, owners, and possible negotiation paths.
G5 - Control & Negotiation
BTR assesses whether a suitable position over the area can be established. Depending on the case, acquisition, purchase option, partnership, exclusivity, right of first refusal, or other legally appropriate instruments may be considered while preserving capital and flexibility whenever possible.
G6 - Validation
Validation may include new data, technical reconnaissance, specialized studies, fieldwork, initial sampling, and laboratory analysis. Evidence is tested against the original thesis and may raise confidence, lower priority, change the interpretation, or justify closure. Results also inform GEOAI's evolution.
G7 - Project Formation
A mature opportunity is no longer treated only as a target and formally enters BTR's project portfolio. It receives its own identifier and brings together decision history, scorecard, territorial documentation, evidence, risks, invested capital, future needs, and development alternatives.
G8 - Strategic Transaction
BTR defines the appropriate value-capture strategy. Depending on maturity and project characteristics, alternatives may include a full or partial sale, joint venture, strategic partner, dedicated funding, retained interest, royalty, licensing, or development by BTR. There is no single exit strategy.
Project Thesis
Every relevant opportunity should have an objective, documented thesis. It explains why the opportunity matters, which evidence supports its classification, the main uncertainties, and the conditions that must be confirmed for the project to advance.
The thesis should be updated whenever new information materially changes its interpretation.
Decision criteria
A Kill Criterion does not automatically close an opportunity. It may move to Hold, return to an earlier Gate, or be classified as Reject. The decision should reflect the evidence available at that time, regardless of capital or time already spent.
Approval criteria
Progress between Gates depends on the criteria for each stage and sufficient evidence to justify further analysis and resources. As applicable, the decision considers score evolution, technical consistency, territorial, regulatory, and environmental conditions, identified risks, required capital, and whether the thesis assumptions still hold.
Minimum score levels, required evidence, weights, and specific rules are defined and reviewed internally according to the mineral, region, data quality, and methodological evolution.
Stop criteria
Each opportunity may have stage-appropriate Kill Criteria that can justify interruption, suspension, or reassessment.
- Technical: evidence inconsistent with the thesis, weak convergence, unfavorable field results, or a material decline in Potential Score or Confidence Score.
- Territorial: inability to access or control essential areas, excessive fragmentation, or unworkable negotiations with key landowners.
- Mineral-rights and regulatory: incompatible ANM status, material rights conflicts, legal restrictions, or inability to structure a legally appropriate position.
- Environmental: restrictions or conditions that materially compromise continuation.
- Economic: entry cost above parameters, capital disproportionate to potential, or a material deterioration in risk-return.
- Strategic: loss of strategic fit, a superior use for the same capital, or a material change in the original assumptions.
Next evidence and value creation
Next Best Evidence
At each stage, BTR looks for the additional information most capable of reducing the uncertainty that matters to the next decision. The goal is to maximize knowledge gained relative to the capital and time required.
Value Inflection Point
The next event able to materially change maturity or strategic value may be new data, completion of material diligence, control of a strategic area, technical validation, or a partnership. Management follows these value-creation milestones, not only tasks.
Portfolio prioritization
Projects in the same Gate do not necessarily have the same priority. Portfolio Ranking may consider:
- Potential Score, Confidence Score, and Opportunity Score.
- Capital required for the next stage, risk level, and expected time.
- Strategic relevance, next required evidence, and the next value-creation milestone.
This comparison directs resources to opportunities with the strongest relationship among potential, available information, required capital, and ability to advance.
Decision logic
| Status | Application |
|---|---|
| Advance | Available evidence supports moving to the next stage. |
| Hold | The opportunity remains in the pipeline but depends on new information, a condition change, or a future review. |
| Reject | Evidence or conditions do not support further resource allocation. |
| Recycle | New information requires a return to an earlier stage for reassessment. |
Operating parameters
Each opportunity maintains a structured record for GEOAI integration and pipeline management.
| Parameter | Record |
|---|---|
| Target / Project ID | Unique identifier |
| Current Gate | G0 to G8 |
| Gate Status | Advance / Hold / Reject / Recycle |
| Project Thesis | Current opportunity thesis |
| Potential Score | Score and model version |
| Confidence Score | Score and model version |
| Opportunity Score | When applicable |
| Project Scorecard | When applicable |
| Critical Risks | Main identified risks |
| Kill Criteria | Stop conditions |
| Next Best Evidence | Priority information to obtain |
| Next Value Inflection Point | Next relevant milestone |
| Portfolio Priority | Relative priority |
| Decision Date | Date of last decision |
| Decision Rationale | Reasoning behind the decision |
| Responsible Owner | Owner of the stage |
| Capital Invested | Cumulative capital |
| Next Capital Requirement | Estimate for the next stage |
| Next Review | Review date or condition |
| Model Version | GEOAI version used |
Use of funds
Each project or thesis should have its own Use of Funds aligned with maturity, risk, available information, and the next cycle's objectives. The baseline below guides initial structuring but is not a fixed rule.
Percentages may change with the opportunity, Stage-Gate results, and priorities. Material changes should be documented to preserve traceability across available, committed, and spent capital.
Available resources do not have to be used in full. BTR may preserve capital, revise allocations, or stop new investment when the next stage does not offer an appropriate relationship among cost, risk reduction, and potential value creation.
| Allocation | Base % |
|---|---|
| GEOAI, data, intelligence, and area identification | 15% |
| Preliminary validation, fieldwork, legal, ANM, and due diligence | 10% |
| Acquisition, option, or control of land and/or related asset | 40% |
| Research, validation, and technical development after selection | 30% |
| Audit, structuring, contingencies, and operating reserve | 5% |
| Total | 100% |
Progressive capital allocation
- G0 to G2: technology, data processing, and technical analysis with low capital exposure.
- G3 to G5: diligence, land intelligence, and position building with controlled exposure.
- G6: new evidence and validation, potentially requiring additional resources.
- G7 and G8: project-specific structuring, development, and transaction needs.
Capital at each stage should reflect existing risk, information quality, and the expected knowledge or value gain from the next decision.