Submit a real deal scenario. Receive an Afrimintel-shaped screening framework, anchored to the platform's published methodology and primary-source provenance.
An Afrimintel-shaped screening framework typically including the following, scaled to the complexity of the question:
1. Decision-shape framing. The seven-to-eight questions a credit committee, capital committee, or investment officer at your institution-type would typically ask of this deal scenario. (Cf. the worked structures in the published Case Studies for Kabanga pre-FID, Manono disputed-tenure, and Loulo-Gounkoto post-settlement.)
2. Asset-level provenance pull. Where the asset is in the platform's intelligence-grade or research-grade dossier set: field-level provenance on reserves, resources, operator interest, recent events, and last-reviewed dates. Where the asset is not in scope: an explicit gap statement, with adjacent context the platform can surface, and the named primary sources outside Afrimintel that would close the gap.
3. Country-risk overlay. The published Country Risk Composite (30/25/25/20 Fraser/TI/RGI/EITI weighted) for the jurisdiction, with the four input scores displayed alongside, the EITI binarisation rule, the weight re-normalisation if any component is missing, and any active editorial overrides. Cf. /methodology/ for the full specification.
4. DCF / stress-test framework where economically meaningful. The platform's DCF Test Battery v1.0 is anchored to the Kamoa-Kakula reconciliation suite. Where operator FS economics are public, a stress-test scenario set can be constructed (long-run consensus / conservative / downside / tail-risk / premium). The output is Derived under the Quality Standard with explicit confidence range.
5. Trigger conditions / pathway analysis where decision shape requires. For disputed-tenure assets, post-settlement assets, restructuring scenarios, or any decision where the constraint is governance/legal rather than geological/economic, the framework includes explicit trigger-condition tables (cf. Manono and Loulo-Gounkoto case studies).
6. Explicit honest-gap statements. What Afrimintel does NOT do for this question — IE commission, legal opinion, sovereign credit analysis, real-time price feeds, regulatory clearance, sanctions screening, etc. — itemised so your institution's other workstreams know exactly where the platform's output stops and where commissioned advisory or in-house work begins.
7. Counterparty-disclosure header. Every response carries the same disclosure carried in published case studies: no commercial relationship with any party named. Where the platform has no relationship and no engagement, this is stated; where the platform has had a relationship, this is disclosed.
→ The platform's structured response would address each of the seven questions in the published Kabanga Pre-FID Investment Brief, calibrated to multilateral-DFI debt-participation perspective specifically, with the institution's prior exposure and internal research context surfaced where relevant.
Is. A deliberate, direct, editorial-attention on-ramp for institutional analysts who want the platform shaped against a real question. The platform is currently in beta — there is no automated workflow, no API, no client-onboarding flow at this stage. The form composes a structured email; Nikesh responds personally. This is the workflow a senior reviewer would expect from a research product whose discipline depends on editorial responsibility.
Is not. A commercial sales funnel. There is no automated upsell, no enrichment of submitted data for marketing, no third-party processing. Submitted scenarios are held under the disclosure preference selected. The Counterparty Extension discipline applies to anything that flows from the response: the platform makes no claim of partnership, customer relationship, or commissioned engagement on the basis of an intake submission. If the relationship evolves, the audit log records it.