{ "SCHEMA": "GEASPIRIT_PUBLIC_PREDICTION_V1", "schema_note": "A FIXED set of categories, published identically for every case. Nobody can later be accused of showing only the fields that came out well, because the fields are the same before anyone knows the answer.", "CASE_ID": "GS-PRED-0001-LINKA", "TARGET": { "asset": "Linka Tungsten Project, Nevada, USA (Linka / Conquest / Hillside workings, Lander County; Linka Mine workings approx. 39.3286 N, -116.8366 W)", "operator": "Viking Mines Limited (ASX: VKA; OTCID: VKALF)", "question": "The ELEMENT CONTENT AND REPORTED VALUES of the next batch of ALS Reno assays from the Linka maiden RC programme (holes other than LKRC0002), as those assays are disclosed to the ASX in mid-to-late September 2026. Assay numbers in drill samples. Nothing else.", "explicitly_not_predicted": [ "Not ore, not a resource, not economics, not a JORC estimate, not metallurgical recovery, not share price.", "Not whether the 900 t bulk sample proceeds, not permitting, not the remaining 47 holes of the originally scoped 63-hole programme.", "Not the exact hole-by-hole depths (collar table for the 16 holes is a raster image in ASX 2026-09-10 Appendix 1 and is not in the corpus in machine-readable form).", "Not the announcement date. 'Mid to late September' is the operator's own wording (ASX 2026-09-10); if it slips, that is not a failure of this prediction." ] }, "CUTOFF": "2026-09-10T23:59:59Z", "SEALED_AT": "2026-09-10T21:06:51+02:00", "PRIORITY": { "value": "LOW", "reasoning": "LOW as a SECOND-CHANCE / OVERLOOKED-ELEMENT target, which is what this benchmark screens for. The tungsten itself is not overlooked - it is the subject of 47 ASX announcements in nine months and an active drill rig, so it fails the 'overlooked' test by definition. And no second element in this corpus reaches a credit-bearing threshold: across 54 site-specific documents the only non-tungsten numbers ever attached to Linka are 3.0 g/t Ag and 0.15% Bi from one ramp channel sample (ASX 2026-02-04), and the one historic multi-element episode explicitly found nothing material except molybdenum (ASX 2026-02-17). A screen looking for a missed critical metal should spend its next hour somewhere else." }, "CONFIDENCE": { "value": "HIGH", "reasoning": "This earns HIGH rather than MEDIUM on four independent legs. (1) Repetition under a Competent Person's signature: 'Scheelite, with traces of chalcopyrite and molybdenite are the only ore minerals recognized' appears in 24 separate Viking ASX announcements from 2025-12-16 to 2026-09-10 - it is the operator's own JORC Table 1 geology statement for Linka Mine, not a press line. (2) Revealed preference under a full multi-element dataset: ME-ME61, which the operator itself says 'reports 61 elements', was run at least twice (due-diligence surface sampling, ASX 2026-02-04; stockpile sampling, ASX 2026-06-09). In February the operator mentioned Ag/Mo/Bi qualitatively; in June, holding a second 61-element dataset, it published tungsten only. (3) Direct method precedent nine days before cutoff: the regional programme reported 2026-09-01 used the SAME pending-batch method (ME-MS89L / W-MS89L) and reported no element other than WO3. (4) A contemporaneous negative from the only multi-element work ever done on this ground: Union Carbide 1975, 28 surface samples for WO3 'and sometime other elements including Molybdenum, Copper, Zinc, Gold and Silver', with the operator stating 'No material results have been identified for the remaining other elements and are not reported' (ASX 2026-02-17). Four legs, three of them modern, all pointing the same way." }, "PREDICTION": { "headline": "THE PENDING BATCH WILL BE REPORTED AS TUNGSTEN ONLY. I predict that the mid-to-late-September batch announcement will contain no grade, in ppm, %, or g/t, for any element other than tungsten (reported as W% and converted to WO3% by the operator's stated W ppm / 10,000 x 1.2611). Probability I assign: 0.80. This is the single most confident statement in this file and it is the one that should be scored first.", "definition_of_significant": "SIGNIFICANT means the element is reported at a level the operator would itself flag, at a numeric bar I fix here in advance. BARREN means it is either not reported at all, or reported below the bar. Every bar below is a number, not an adjective. All grades are as they would be reported in the ASX release: length-weighted over a contiguous interval, 0.10% WO3 lower cut-off with up to 2 m internal dilution and no top cut, per the aggregation rule stated in ASX 2026-09-10 JORC Table 1.", "ranked_calls": [ { "rank": 1, "element": "W (tungsten, reported as WO3)", "call": "SIGNIFICANT", "confidence": "HIGH", "gradeability": "GRADEABLE" }, { "rank": 2, "element": "Zn (zinc)", "call": "BARREN", "confidence": "HIGH", "gradeability": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED" }, { "rank": 3, "element": "Au (gold)", "call": "BARREN", "confidence": "HIGH", "gradeability": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED" }, { "rank": 4, "element": "Cu (copper)", "call": "BARREN", "confidence": "HIGH", "gradeability": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED" }, { "rank": 5, "element": "Ag (silver)", "call": "BARREN at any credit-bearing level", "confidence": "HIGH", "gradeability": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED" }, { "rank": 6, "element": "Mo (molybdenum)", "call": "SPLIT - SIGNIFICANT as an anomaly, BARREN as a co-product", "confidence": "MEDIUM on the anomaly bar, HIGH on the co-product bar", "gradeability": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED" }, { "rank": 7, "element": "Bi (bismuth)", "call": "SPLIT - SIGNIFICANT as an anomaly, BARREN as a co-product", "confidence": "MEDIUM", "gradeability": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED" }, { "rank": 8, "element": "Sn, Te, Ga, In, Ge, Co (tin, tellurium, gallium, indium, germanium, cobalt)", "call": "BARREN - all six", "confidence": "HIGH", "gradeability": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED" } ] }, "PROBABILITIES": { "headline_scenario": 0.8, "note": "0.80 that the pending batch is reported as tungsten only. Stated in advance so that a near-miss cannot later be described as a hit." }, "QUANTITATIVE_RANGES": [ "P1. At least TWO holes in the next reported batch return an intercept of >= 5 m at >= 0.30% WO3.", "P2. LKRC0003 returns an aggregate reported intercept of >= 8 m at >= 0.30% WO3, beginning at less than 20 m downhole.", "P3. LKRC0004 returns an aggregate reported intercept of >= 6 m at >= 0.30% WO3, beginning at less than 15 m downhole.", "P4. The best single reported intercept in the batch (>= 5 m length) has a weighted average grade BETWEEN 0.30% and 1.20% WO3. I am predicting a band, not a floor: I am explicitly predicting that the batch does NOT deliver a >= 5 m intercept above 1.20% WO3.", "P5. LKRC0001 returns no significant intercept, or is not reported as an assayed hole at all.", "P6. Individual 1 m maxima somewhere in the batch fall between 1.0% and 4.0% WO3." ], "SUPPORT": [ "{\"claim\": \"The pending batch will carry significant tungsten.\", \"evidence\": \"vka_asx_20260819_viking_drills_wide_scheelite_zones_at_linka_tungsten_proje.pdf.txt - LKRC0003 'Combined total of 13m of visible scheelite over a 19m horizon from 9m downhole'; LKRC0004 'Combined total of 11m of visible scheelite over a 21m horizon from 3m downhole'.\"}", "{\"claim\": \"Visual scheelite logging at Linka is a calibrated predictor of assayed width and grade.\", \"evidence\": \"vka_asx_20260910_maiden_drilling_at_linka_tungsten_delivers_14m_0_56_wo3.pdf.txt - 'Laboratory assays validate the Company's visual scheelite logging, with the 14m assayed interval matching closely to the 12m visual estimate'; visual abundance range for LKRC0002 stated as 0.1% to 3.0% scheelite, assayed 1 m maximum 1.18% WO3.\"}", "{\"claim\": \"The 0.30-1.20% WO3 band is the historically supported grade envelope.\", \"evidence\": \"mrds_dep_10045161.html.txt production rows 'Cp_Grade: ^Ave. 0.6% Wo3 (1943-1944)' and 'Cp_Grade: ^Ave. 0.98% W03 (1951-1956)'; vka_asx_20251216 - '65,000 tonnes at 0.5% WO3 ... up to 1956'; vka_asx_20260910 - 'consistent with recorded historic production at Linka of ~0.49% WO3'.\"}", "{\"claim\": \"Linka's ore mineralogy is scheelite plus traces of chalcopyrite and molybdenite, and nothing else.\", \"evidence\": \"The identical Competent-Person sentence 'Scheelite, with traces of chalcopyrite and molybdenite are the only ore minerals recognized' in 24 announcements including vka_asx_20251216, vka_asx_20260204, vka_asx_20260901 and vka_asx_20260910.\"}", "{\"claim\": \"Molybdenum is the one non-tungsten element with a genuine mineralogical claim at Linka.\", \"evidence\": \"mrds_dep_10045161.html.txt materials 'Molybdenite Ore; Powellite Ore'; mrds_dep_10008793.html.txt commodities 'Tungsten Primary; Molybdenum Primary'; usgs_circ930o_tungsten_strategic_mineral_issues.pdf.txt - 'Molybdenum can substitute for some of the tungsten in scheelite (up to 2.0 percent molybdenum)'; usgs_ofr94-5_grade_tonnage_tungsten_skarn_nevada.pdf.txt - molybdenite among common opaque phases.\"}", "{\"claim\": \"The operator itself singled molybdenum out twice, and only molybdenum.\", \"evidence\": \"vka_asx_20260204 - 'elevated pathfinder elements including silver, molybdenum, and bismuth'; vka_asx_20260217 - 'Molybdenum has been reported in Appendix 1 as levels may be of significance. No material results have been identified for the remaining other elements and are not reported.'\"}", "{\"claim\": \"Bismuth has a real deposit-type basis and one real Linka number.\", \"evidence\": \"usgs_ofr94-5 - 'native bismuth or bismuthinite' among common opaque phases of tungsten skarn; vka_asx_20260204 - '3.0g/t silver and 0.15% bismuth' from the Linka Pit ramp sample that returned 5 m @ 0.7% WO3.\"}", "{\"claim\": \"A deposit-type-analogue W skarn with Linka's exact assemblage carries Mo and Cu but is credited for W only.\", \"evidence\": \"usgs_sir2023-5082_critical_minerals_subduction_magmatic_hydrothermal.pdf.txt table 2, Indian Springs, Nev. - ore minerals 'Scheelite, powellite, molybdenite, tetrahedrite, chalcopyrite'; elements in deposit 'W, Mo, Cu'; CM in resource 'W'.\"}" ], "COUNTER_EVIDENCE": [ { "against": "My tungsten-only headline call.", "counter": "ASX 2026-09-10 Appendix 1 is titled 'DRILLHOLE INFORMATION & ASSAY RESULTS' and is a raster image that pypdf cannot read. I have not seen its columns. If that table already carries Mo, Bi or Ag columns for LKRC0002, then the pending batch will carry them too and my rank-1 call is wrong from the moment I write it. I cannot exclude this and I am not pretending to." }, { "against": "My tungsten-only headline call.", "counter": "The pending method is written TWO different ways in the same document. ASX 2026-09-10 says 'ME-MS89L' in the sampling-techniques row and 'W-MS89L' in the quality-of-assay row; ASX 2026-09-01 does the same. 'ME-' is a multi-element prefix and 'W-' is a single-element prefix in the operator's own usage elsewhere (ME-ME61 multi-element vs W-MS85h for tungsten). If the ME- form is the correct one and the W- form is the typographical slip rather than the reverse, a full multi-element dataset exists for every pending hole and only editorial choice keeps it out of the release." }, { "against": "My BARREN calls on Cu, Zn, Ag, Au.", "counter": "The Union Carbide 1975 negative rests on 28 SURFACE samples by a method the operator states is unknown, analysed at two laboratories, with sample size and preparation unknown (ASX 2026-02-17). That is a weak instrument. A 1975 surface reconnaissance failing to find copper is not the same as modern ICP-MS on fresh sulphide-bearing tactite at 40-54 m depth failing to find copper." }, { "against": "My BARREN call on Bi as a co-product.", "counter": "0.15% Bi is a genuinely large rock value - 1500 ppm - and it is not a stray grab sample, it is tied to a channel that returned 5 m @ 0.7% WO3 in the Linka Pit itself. If that tenor persists down-dip into the tactite the RC holes are cutting, bismuth would exceed my P11 bar." }, { "against": "My HIGH confidence generally.", "counter": "The QAQC in the corpus is thin and internally inconsistent. There is no umpire analysis, no twinned holes, and no independent verification of intersections. Worse, ASX 2026-09-10 states the standard/blank rate TWICE and disagrees with itself: 'Standards (1:40 samples) and blanks (1:40 samples)' in one row, and 'one certified reference material every 20 samples, one blank every 25 samples and selects one duplicate every 10 samples' in another. On top of that, LKRC0002's own splitter was judged 'not suitable for the wet sample which was being produced'. The single calibration point my tungsten prediction leans on is the hole with the acknowledged sampling problem." }, { "against": "My BARREN calls on the six critical metals.", "counter": "Nobody has ever assayed Linka drill core for Te, Ga, In, Ge, Co or Sn and published it. ME-ME61 may or may not include all six. Absence of a flag by the operator is weaker evidence than a measured non-detection, and I am treating it as stronger than it strictly is." }, { "against": "My LOW priority.", "counter": "If the sole criterion were 'is there metal here', the answer is plainly yes - the tungsten is real, wide, shallow, and confirmed below the historic stope. LOW is a judgement about this benchmark's overlooked-element question only, and a reader using it for anything else will be misled." } ], "FALSIFIERS": [ "F1 (kills the headline call): the mid-to-late-September batch announcement reports a numeric grade for ANY element other than tungsten in its body, bullets, or assay table.", "F2 (kills the Mo co-product call, P7): any reported interval of >= 2 m averaging >= 500 ppm Mo, or molybdenum presented anywhere in the release as a co-product, credit, or second critical mineral.", "F3 (kills the Cu call): any reported interval of >= 2 m averaging >= 0.10% Cu.", "F4 (kills the Zn call): any reported interval of >= 2 m averaging >= 1000 ppm Zn.", "F5 (kills the Ag call): any reported interval of >= 2 m averaging >= 30 g/t Ag.", "F6 (kills the Au call): any reported interval of >= 2 m averaging >= 0.2 g/t Au.", "F7 (kills the Bi co-product call, P11): any reported interval of >= 2 m averaging >= 0.15% Bi in drill samples.", "F8 (kills the B4 rejection, P13): any of Sn, Te, Ga, In, Ge or Co reported at a value the operator describes as elevated, anomalous, or of significance.", "F9 (kills the tungsten width call, P1-P3): NEITHER LKRC0003 NOR LKRC0004 returns an intercept of >= 5 m at >= 0.30% WO3.", "F10 (kills the grade-band call, P4): the best >= 5 m intercept in the batch grades above 1.20% WO3, or no hole in the batch reaches 0.30% WO3 over >= 5 m.", "F11 (kills the Mo-first ordering, P9): a non-tungsten element other than molybdenum is the first to be given a number at Linka.", "F12 (retrospectively invalidates the gradeability reasoning): the released ME-MS89L suite turns out to be a single-element tungsten determination with no other element measured at all - in which case F2 through F8 can never be tested and only F1, F9, F10 remain scoreable. I am recording this now so that an unscoreable outcome is not later read as a correct one." ], "MISSING_EVIDENCE": [ "1. THE ME-MS89L ELEMENT LIST. This is the whole game. Named as manifest gap #4: alsglobal.com is a JavaScript SPA and every probed path returns the same 80,831-byte shell. Until the suite is known, every non-tungsten call in this file is conditional and most may be unscoreable.", "2. OCR OF ASX 2026-09-10 APPENDIX 1. Titled 'DRILLHOLE INFORMATION & ASSAY RESULTS', raster only. Its column headers alone would settle the gradeability question for the whole exercise BEFORE the result lands, and would also supply the collar table for the 16 holes.", "3. OCR OF ASX 2026-02-17 APPENDIX 1. It contains the Union Carbide 1975 molybdenum values - the only molybdenum numbers ever measured on this ground and the only direct calibration available for P7/P8.", "4. NBMG BULLETIN 105, Stager and Tingley (1988), 'Tungsten deposits in Nevada'. Not obtained - a $25 in-print product, 404 on every free path, absent from archive.org and HathiTrust. This is the source the operator itself cites for the Linka workings and its 3D model.", "5. The 2021 tungsten skarn mineral resource assessment of the Great Basin - ScienceDirect 403. The most on-point modern regional treatment of exactly this deposit type." ], "NEXT_BEST_ACTION": { "action": "Re-run the EXISTING pulps. No new drilling, no new field work, no new sample.", "detail": "PREP-31BY pulps for the mineralised intervals already exist at ALS Reno for every assayed hole - dried, crushed to 70% <2 mm, pulverised to 85% passing 75 microns. Take the ~50-80 pulps that fall inside the reported WO3 intercepts and put them through ME-ME61, the four-acid ICP-AES/ICP-MS package the operator has ALREADY used twice at Linka and which it states in its own JORC Table 1 'reports 61 elements' (ASX 2026-02-04, ASX 2026-06-09). Add a 30 g fire assay for gold on the same pulps if the gold question is to be closed rather than assumed.", "why_it_is_the_cheapest": "It is a laboratory re-order on material already in the lab's custody. There is no rig, no crew, no permit, no BLM notice, and no new sampling risk - and it is the ONLY test that resolves both the gradeability gap and every element call in this file simultaneously. Its result is directly comparable to the February surface dataset, so it also tells the operator whether the ramp-sample Ag-Bi-Mo signature persists at depth. Note the tension the operator will feel: ME-ME61 is 'considered partial' by its own wording, so it cannot replace the total-fusion tungsten determination - it is an ADDITION to the schedule, not a substitution." }, "BASELINES": { "B1_same_as_mined": { "value": "TUNGSTEN ONLY, as WO3, at roughly 0.5 to 1.0% WO3.", "corpus_basis": "'The mines produced approximately 65,000 tonnes at 0.5% WO3 through a 360 tonne-per-day mill up to 1956' (ASX 2025-12-16); Linka 2,420 tons at 0.69% WO3 (1943-44) and 4,000 tons at 0.98% WO3; MRDS #10045161 'Ave. 0.6% Wo3' and 'Ave. 0.98% W03'. Operating-era assays were 'reported as WO3 however the assay method is unknown', run by Getchell Mines, Inc. at Golconda (ASX 2025-12-16). No other element was ever determined in the operating era." }, "B2_deposit_type_associates": { "value": "W skarn (MRDS model 42 / USGS 14a): tungsten with molybdenum, copper and bismuth, plus silver, gold, zinc, tin and antimony in some members of the class.", "corpus_basis": "USGS OFR 94-5: 'Scheelite is the dominant ore mineral. Other common opaque phases include pyrite and(or) pyrrhotite, magnetite, native bismuth or bismuthinite, and molybdenite.' USGS Circular 930-O: 'In some tungsten-bearing skarn deposits, copper, molybdenum, and bismuth minerals are also present and may be economically recoverable.' USGS SIR 2023-5082 table 2, US W skarns: 'W, Cu, Ag, Au'; 'Cu, Mo, W, Au, Ag, and Sb'; 'W, Mo, Cu'." }, "B3_size_ranking": { "value": "NOT APPLICABLE.", "reason": "Size ranking requires a population to rank within. This exercise scores a single asset, and no ranking against peers is being predicted. Stated explicitly so that its absence is not later mistaken for an oversight. For the record the corpus DOES contain the relevant population - USGS OFR 94-5 and SIR 2020-5085 grade-tonnage models for tungsten skarn, and OFR 94-5's appendix carries a deposit in the Spencer Hot Springs district, Lander County, which is Linka's own district - but the pypdf extraction interleaves the name, district, county and size columns and I will not pair a tonnage to a name I cannot verify." }, "B4_generic_critical_list": { "value": "'Tungsten is a US critical mineral, therefore assay for the critical-minerals shopping list' - typically tungsten plus germanium, gallium, indium, tellurium, cobalt, tin and rare earths.", "corpus_basis": "Tungsten's critical status is established in the corpus (USGS Circular 930-O treats tungsten as a strategic mineral; USGS OFR 2015-1021, OFR 2016-1191, OFR 2019-1023c and OFR 2019-1023d are critical-minerals focus-area products). The shopping-list elements are the generic tail: each has ZERO mentions in all 54 site-specific documents." }, "HOW_MY_CALL_DIFFERS": { "vs_B1": "IT BARELY DIFFERS, AND I AM SAYING SO PLAINLY. My headline prediction - tungsten only, at 0.30 to 1.20% WO3 over the reported intercepts - is B1 restated. What I add over B1 is precision, not a different element: hole-level width and grade predictions for LKRC0003 and LKRC0004 with an upper bound as well as a lower one, and a single named blind candidate (Mo) carrying an explicit sub-economic ceiling. If the scoring wants the most useful sentence in this file, it is this one: after reading 126 documents I ended up where the 1950s mine operators already were.", "vs_B2": "I DEMOTE MOST OF IT. B2 offers Mo, Cu and Bi with Ag, Au, Zn, Sn behind them. I call Cu, Zn, Au and Ag flatly BARREN at any credit-bearing level with numeric ceilings on each, keep Mo only as a pathfinder-scale anomaly while predicting it is NOT a co-product, and keep Bi only as a local anomaly while predicting it does not reproduce 0.15% at width in drill samples. B2 is a list of what COULD be there; my call is a list of what is NOT, and the difference is that mine is falsifiable.", "vs_B3": "Not applicable - no ranking is predicted.", "vs_B4": "I REJECT IT OUTRIGHT. I predict zero of germanium, gallium, indium, tellurium, cobalt and tin appear at any reported level, and in M1a I decline to nominate a single new critical metal. This is the one place where my call is maximally distant from a baseline, and it is the deliberate opposite of the shotgun strategy: I would rather be scored wrong on a refusal than right on a list." } }, "GRADABILITY_RULES": { "rule": "An element the laboratory does not report is scored UNGRADEABLE, never as a correct prediction.", "why": "In an earlier case a widely repeated germanium figure turned out to have no data column behind it at all. Scoring against a number that does not exist would have manufactured a hit.", "per_element": { "W (tungsten, reported as WO3)": "GRADEABLE", "Zn (zinc)": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED", "Au (gold)": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED", "Cu (copper)": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED", "Ag (silver)": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED", "Mo (molybdenum)": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED", "Bi (bismuth)": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED", "Sn, Te, Ga, In, Ge, Co (tin, tellurium, gallium, indium, germanium, cobalt)": "UNGRADEABLE_IF_NOT_REPORTED" } }, "PREDICTION_SHA256": "af6d9c10b30d5d6c798781c98dbf14576b6a6d5ab05a3afc1925e4947dddd9a1", "CORPUS_SHA256": "e65bbac7ef4870361fbba78f47bb72cb4ae555a5f2c12357c9f05f90601419ca", "CORPUS_DESCRIPTION": "124 documents published 1930-06 to 2026-09-10. The corpus itself stays private; its hash is published so the evidence base cannot be swapped later.", "STATUS": "SEALED — INDEPENDENT OUTCOME PENDING", "OUTCOME": null, "SCORE": null, "IMMUTABILITY": "The original sealed file is never edited. This public document is DERIVED from it and omits only local filesystem paths and internal audit notes. The original's hash above is the authority.", "WHAT_THIS_DOES_NOT_CLAIM": [ "GeaSpirit did not discover Linka. The drilling, sampling and assaying are the operator's work.", "One sealed case is an anecdote, not a validation.", "This predicts assay numbers in drill samples. Not ore, not a resource, not economics." ], "CLASSIFICATION": { "CASE_ID": "GS-PRED-0001-LINKA", "PREDICTION_TYPE": "ASSAY", "COMMODITY_DOMAIN": "Tungsten (WO3), polymetallic screen", "JURISDICTION": "United States - Nevada", "EVIDENCE_CUTOFF": "2026-09-10T23:59:59Z", "SEALED_AT": "2026-09-10T19:06:51Z", "STATUS": "SEALED", "OUTCOME_STATUS": "PENDING", "SCORING_PROTOCOL_VERSION": "SECOND_CHANCE_BLIND_PROTOCOL_V1 + AMENDMENT_1 + AMENDMENT_2", "CONTROLLED_VOCABULARY": { "PREDICTION_TYPE": [ "ASSAY", "SPATIAL_GEOLOGICAL", "METALLURGICAL", "TAILINGS_RECOVERY", "PROCESSING", "RESOURCE_CONTINUITY", "OTHER" ], "STATUS": [ "SEALED", "RESOLVED" ], "OUTCOME_STATUS": [ "PENDING", "CORRECT", "PARTIAL", "FAILED", "UNGRADEABLE" ] } } }