This page is a conceptual workflow example, not a client result, deposit claim, or performance benchmark. It illustrates how Scanminers structures a regional screening engagement when the decision is where to focus the next phase of exploration.
Starting question
An exploration team controls or is evaluating a large area with fragmented geological, remote-sensing, geophysical, geochemical, and historical evidence. The team needs a defensible shortlist before committing budget to broad field deployment.
The decision is:
Which parts of the AOI deserve the next unit of investigation, and why?
1. Define the mineral-system thesis
The workflow begins with commodity, deposit style, geological setting, exploration maturity, constraints, and the decision deadline. The team records what evidence should be present if the thesis is correct and what observations might falsify it.
2. Audit the available evidence
Every dataset is assessed for:
- Provenance and date.
- Spatial and spectral resolution.
- Coverage and gaps.
- Processing level.
- Sampling bias.
- Relevance to the deposit model.
- Known artifacts and limitations.
Inputs that cannot support the decision are excluded rather than added for visual complexity.
3. Build interpretable layers
Depending on suitability, the analysis may include:
- Optical or hyperspectral surface responses.
- Radar and elevation-derived structural context.
- Lithology and mapped geology.
- Geochemical or geophysical evidence.
- Known occurrences and historical observations.
- Terrain, cover, access, or exclusion constraints.
Each layer is tied to an explicit geological or operational question.
4. Integrate and challenge the evidence
Evidence is combined using a transparent method appropriate to the available labels and decision. The team reviews:
- Which layers drive each priority.
- Whether correlated evidence is being counted repeatedly.
- How rankings change under alternative weights or models.
- Whether known occurrences have leaked into validation.
- What non-geological factors could create the response.
5. Rank areas, not discoveries
The output is a tiered register of areas for follow-up. Each entry includes:
- Priority tier.
- Principal evidence drivers.
- Confidence context.
- Competing explanation.
- Data gap.
- Recommended field check.
- Condition that would downgrade the priority.
6. Package the next move
The final package may include GIS layers, a ranked register, an executive prospectivity brief, an evidence-and-limitations ledger, and a sequenced field-verification plan.
The deliverable does not claim that a target is mineralized. It makes the next investigation more focused and the rationale easier to review.
Why this distinction matters
A conceptual example should never be presented as field-proven performance. It demonstrates process and deliverable structure only. Any production case study must separately disclose its evidence status, validation approach, and limitations.