Worked demonstrations of Afrimintel's decision-aid utility on real, current institutional investment decisions in African mining. Each case study is a self-produced screening artefact built from public primary sources and the platform's published data layer. No institutional partner has commissioned, reviewed, or endorsed any case study; the Counterparty Extension discipline is published at /quality-standard.
Three structurally different decision shapes, demonstrating that Afrimintel produces decision-aid utility across decision-type, not only across asset-type. The test that institutional uptake is driven by investment-decision value rather than asset coverage.
Worked screening of a live mid-2026 FID decision currently in front of the U.S. DFC, JOGMEC, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and a commercial syndicate being assembled by Société Générale. Walks through the seven questions a DFI credit committee will ask, what Afrimintel surfaces in 30 minutes (with primary-source provenance), what Afrimintel does NOT do, a worked DCF price-stress scenario, and the defensible time/cost saving versus building the brief from scratch.
Worked institutional analysis of a 842 Mt @ 1.61% Li₂O deposit with multi-party claim structure (Zijin/Cominière NE construction, Dathcom-AVZ South arbitration, KoBold framework conditional, CATH conditional funding) and US–China critical-minerals overlay. Walks through the eight questions a capital committee will ask on a disputed-tenure asset, surfaces the conditional-pathway trigger framework (five pathways), and shows how the platform handles a fundamentally different decision shape from greenfield screening.
Worked institutional analysis of a Tier-1 operating gold complex post-settlement: ~$430M cash + 10-year permit extension + return of 3 metric tons of gold + ICSID withdrawal + 2023 Mining Code acceptance + 80/20 ownership preserved + revised 9-12% blended royalty. Walks through the seven questions a capital committee will ask on post-settlement re-entry, surfaces the durability-trigger framework (six conditions whose materialisation would invalidate the settlement framework), and shows the third structurally distinct decision shape.
Worked institutional screening of the Lobito Corridor as a system-level critical-minerals exposure decision spanning four structurally different exposure levels (direct infrastructure, operator-consortium, off-take/trader, asset-level). $6bn+ cumulative committed funding base verified. Walks through the nine questions a capital committee will ask, surfaces the trilateral political-coordination framework (Angola/DRC/Zambia through 2030), the geopolitical-shift framework (US-anchor → EU-led under Trump policy shift), the asset-level economic delta for Cu-Co assets within corridor catchment, and the eight-archetype institutional-allocation matrix. The fourth structurally distinct decision shape — system-level rather than asset-level.
Worked institutional analysis of how a capital allocator re-prices an operating Tier-1 copper asset following the 31 March 2026 NI 43-101 reserve compression: 466 Mt @ 2.82% Cu (13.1 Mt contained, ~30% reduction from December 2022) and 21-year mine life (down from prior 33-year). Walks through the seven questions an institutional reader will ask, applies the new reserve baseline to the platform DCF tool, surfaces the structural distinction between intact operator annual-guidance figures (290-330 kt 2026; 380-420 kt 2027; >500 kt 2028+) and the compressed DCF horizon implication, and names the trigger conditions for re-rating in either direction. The fifth structurally distinct decision shape — operating-supermajor re-rating, not pre-FID screening; the only case study where the platform has a verified prediction-resolution Track Record entry pre-dating the dossier publication.
The platform is structured so an institutional analyst can walk a real decision through it in 30–90 minutes depending on asset complexity. The pattern is:
Does: Consolidated primary-source provenance on African mining assets. Country-risk screening composites. Province-level geological context. DCF price-stress scenarios anchored to Tier-1 reconciliation suites. Cross-asset comparable surfacing. Daily commodity and project-signal watchlist. Audit log of every correction, fix, and version bump. Three-state Quality Standard (Sourced / Derived / Absent — no fourth state).
Does NOT: Independent Engineer commissions. Project finance term-sheet drafting. Counterparty credit memos. ESG / IFC PS compliance audits. Legal opinions. Sovereign credit analysis. Real-time tradable price feeds. Direct counterparty engagement or brokerage. Endorsement or substitute for any specific institution's internal investment process.
The triptych above (Kabanga pre-FID, Manono disputed-tenure, Loulo-Gounkoto post-settlement) is the first cohort of an intended ongoing case study series spanning operating Tier-1 assets, restructuring/refinancing scenarios, off-take negotiations, royalty/streaming decisions, and cross-border province-level theses across multiple geological terranes. The roadmap is published in the platform's deferred-roadmap document; case study additions are recorded in the public Audit Log.
Two cross-asset comparison surfaces are published; they serve different purposes.
1. The decision-shape matrix at /case-studies/comparison/ — a side-by-side reading of all five published case studies on fourteen standardised institutional-screening dimensions (commodity, country, resource baseline, FS economics, AISC, mine life, DFI mandate-fit status, screening reading, key risk, recency of material disclosure, decision-readiness confidence, and others). At-a-glance view; preserves decision-shape distinctions rather than forcing common categories that would erase case-specific detail.
2. The portfolio comparison at /case-studies/comparison/portfolio.html — a deeper analyst working surface across the same five dossiers organised by analytical layer: asset profile, bankability decomposition per Methodology §10, downstream-risk substrate, multilateral safeguards framework integration (Component E v1.2), counterparty eligibility, portfolio observations, and methodology cross-links. Designed for the DFI investment-officer / portfolio-manager workflow of comparing pipeline assets against a shared analytical frame rather than reading five separate dossiers sequentially.
The matrix is the entry point; the portfolio comparison is where institutional analysts spend time.
If you would like the platform shaped against a real deal scenario rather than a published case study, the structured intake page at /intake/ is the on-ramp. Submission is by structured form; Nikesh responds personally within 48 hours with an Afrimintel-shaped screening framework calibrated to your institution-type, jurisdiction, commodity, deal stage, and decision type.
For DFIs, multilaterals, sovereign-investment vehicles, pension and infrastructure funds, and comparable institutional capital allocators with a real African mining or critical-minerals-corridor deal in screening, Afrimintel publishes a standing offer at /engagement-protocol/: a 30-day no-fee shadow-screen pilot on one real deal at the institutional partner's choice, producing a parallel diligence artefact for direct comparison against the institution's internal screening output. Terms are published; bandwidth is the binding constraint; pilots are accepted in request-arrival order.