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 indices. The jurisdiction’s published Fraser Institute, Transparency International and NRGI indices and EITI status, each with its edition. Afrimintel combines them into no score.
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. 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.