Methodology · Downstream Risk & Safeguards v1.0

How the downstream layer is built

Per-asset conflict, governance and safeguard signals — and where they are honestly Pending. Version v2.137.24

This layer answers a development-finance committee's Q7: what is the downstream / safeguards risk of this specific asset? It combines conflict-incident data, beneficial-ownership verifiability and a safeguards lens at the asset level — with the same three-state honesty as the rest of the platform. A blank cell is marked Pending, never filled with an estimate.

Inputs

ACLED admin1 conflict-incident counts Sourced — Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, at the first sub-national administrative level (province) of each asset's host jurisdiction, captured at Explorer tier (as-of 2026-05-12). Where a count has not yet been ingested for an asset's admin1, it is marked Pending — not interpolated. Current captured set: Lualaba (34), Tanganyika (44), North-Western Zambia (4), plus corridor regions.
EITI beneficial-ownership status Sourced — carried from the deposit dossier's ownership graph (EITI member + register status). Non-EITI hosts show "Absent — not EITI" honestly.
Security context Sourced/Derived — named, asset-specific security facts where they exist (e.g. Balama's 2024–25 force-majeure suspension linked to the Cabo Delgado insurgency; the Manono arbitration being the binding risk rather than field security). Qualitative, sourced to public record or the dossier.
IFC Performance Standards lens Derived — IFC PS 1–8 apply to any DFI debt facility; quantified per-asset PS scoring is a scheduled v1.2 deepening and is marked Pending until built. We show the framework applicability, not a fabricated score.

The downstream read

Each asset carries a one-line synthesis ("downstream read") that flags material security exposure or an elevated conflict-incident count (admin1 ≥ 40) where present, and otherwise states honestly that no elevated flag was captured (with some markers Pending). This is a flagging instrument, not a risk rating — it points a diligence team at what to examine, it does not replace their judgement.

Stated limits

ACLED counts are admin1 (province) level, not site-level — they bound the regional conflict environment, not the mine gate.
Several assets' admin1 counts and all per-asset IFC PS scores are Pending — this is the honest current state, and the gaps are visible in-layer rather than hidden.
This is a diligence substrate, not an ESG rating or an underwriting.

Cross-references: Decision Lens (Q7) · downstream.json feed · bankability-depth method