Afrimintel · Decision Views · Claims Register · Error Bounty · Methodology · Audit Log

Right of reply

We score guidance and claims against each company's own primary disclosures — a claimant's release or filing, never secondary press. If your company is named in the guidance & claims register and you believe a row is wrong, incomplete, or missing context, you have a standing right to reply, on the record, alongside the row.

How it works

1 Your company is named in a register row.

2 Email your response to nikesh@afrimintel.com, identifying the specific row.

3 You choose whether we publish your response verbatim or as a summary you approve.

4 Your reply is published alongside the row, attributed to you, dated.

5 If your reply cites a primary document that corrects the row, we also correct the row under the Quality Standard SLA (material within 7 business days, non-material within 30) and log it on the audit log.

The reply window. A letter gives at least ten business days from the date sent, counted in the company's home market and allowing for its public holidays; the letter states the reply-by date. The window is a commitment by us, not a limit on you: the reply channel never closes, and a reply received after the window is published on the same terms and replaces the notation below. Where no reply is received within the window, the record notes that a right of reply was offered and not taken up. That notation is a neutral statement of fact about our own procedure — it carries no implication either way, it is not a finding about the company, and it is never presented as one. It records what we did, not what the company did: a company has no obligation to reply to us, and many will have good reasons not to. Where a letter is outstanding the record shows that it was sent and its date, with the clock visible.

Notification (ruled 17 September 2026, superseding the ruling of 7 September 2026). Right of reply is a standing obligation owed to every company named in a register row or divergence record, and it is discharged the same way everywhere: the same letter, the same wording, sent to every company that gets a row, in every jurisdiction. What changed and why. The 7 September ruling made notification a case-by-case editorial decision and excepted the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, treating a notification in those jurisdictions as outreach barred by the Editor-in-Chief's conflict-of-interest line. That exception is withdrawn. The conflict line bars outreach — contact seeking an advantage for this company, such as a customer, a meeting or an introduction, where a disclosed public position could have opened the door. A right-of-reply letter seeks nothing and confers no advantage on Afrimintel; it discharges a published duty owed to the company being written about. Withholding it from operators in those jurisdictions would publish about them while denying them the fairness every other operator receives — a worse outcome for those operators, and asymmetric on its face. Because every letter is mechanical and identical, it carries no editorial judgement that a conflict could colour. Notice given under the withdrawn rule. On 17 September 2026 a right-of-reply letter was sent to Ivanhoe Mines regarding the Kamoa-Kakula records, under the ruling published here, before this page was amended to match it. The send is logged on the audit log; the platform's practice and its published policy disagreed for the period between the ruling and this amendment, and that gap is recorded rather than quietly closed. Every notification sent or withheld continues to be logged on the record.

Letters sent. Every letter, its date and its clock. A reply is published beside the row it answers; a reply received after the window is published on the same terms.

Ivanhoe Mines: Sent 17 Sep 2026 · reply requested by 1 Oct 2026; Entries: Kamoa-Kakula guidance restatement; the 2024-to-2025 reserve restatement; Afrimintel's own source-dating error; Status: Window closed. No reply received: a right of reply was offered and not taken up. A fact about our procedure, not a finding about the company.
West Wits Mining: Sent 28 Sep 2026 · reply requested by 14 Oct 2026; Entries: Qala Shallows first gold pour; Status: Window closed. No reply received: a right of reply was offered and not taken up. A fact about our procedure, not a finding about the company.
Lotus Resources: Sent 28 Sep 2026 · reply requested by 14 Oct 2026; Entries: Kayelekera steady-state production (two entries); Status: Window closed. No reply received: a right of reply was offered and not taken up. A fact about our procedure, not a finding about the company.
Lifezone Metals: Sent 28 Sep 2026 · reply requested by 14 Oct 2026; Entries: Kabanga FID (two entries); bridge-loan third tranche; Status: Window closed. No reply received: a right of reply was offered and not taken up. A fact about our procedure, not a finding about the company.
Allied Gold: Sent 28 Sep 2026 · reply requested by 14 Oct 2026; Entries: Zijin acquisition; Zijin strategic investment; Kurmuk start of operations; Status: Window closed. No reply received: a right of reply was offered and not taken up. A fact about our procedure, not a finding about the company.
Perseus Mining: Sent 28 Sep 2026 · reply requested by 14 Oct 2026; Entries: FY26 guidance as first issued and as revised; Nyanzaga first gold; Status: Window closed. No reply received: a right of reply was offered and not taken up. A fact about our procedure, not a finding about the company.
Fortuna Mining: Sent 12 Oct 2026 · reply requested by 27 Oct 2026; Entries: Diamba Sud construction decision; Diamba Sud feasibility study; Status: Open
Resolute Mining: Sent 12 Oct 2026 · reply requested by 27 Oct 2026; Entries: 2026 production guidance (group and Syama); Tomboronkoto mining permit application (two entries); Status: Open
Endeavour Mining: Sent 12 Oct 2026 · reply requested by 27 Oct 2026; Entries: Assafou Definitive Feasibility Study; FY-2026 sustaining capital; Status: Open
Montage Gold: Sent 12 Oct 2026 · reply requested by 27 Oct 2026; Entries: Koné first gold pour (published 4 Oct 2026, before this letter); Koné satellite resource estimates; Status: Open
KEFI Gold and Copper: Sent 12 Oct 2026 · reply requested by 27 Oct 2026; Entries: Tulu Kapi funding package signing; Status: Open
Ivanhoe Mines (second letter): Sent 12 Oct 2026 · reply requested by 27 Oct 2026; Entries: Platreef commercial production; Platreef Shaft #3; Makoko Mineral Resource Estimate; Status: Open
Allied Gold (second letter): Sent 12 Oct 2026 · reply requested by 27 Oct 2026; Entries: Kurmuk first gold; Status: Open
West Wits Mining (second letter): Sent 12 Oct 2026 · reply requested by 27 Oct 2026; Entries: Project 200 Scoping Study; Status: Open

The letters to Lifezone Metals, Allied Gold and Perseus Mining went out on 28 September 2026, after some of their rows had already been scored in public; that gap is declared on the audit log. The Koné first-gold row was scored and published on 4 October 2026, before Montage Gold's letter of 12 October 2026; that gap is declared on the audit log too. Rows without a letter carry no clock yet; each gets its letter before it appears in an edition.

Publication notice. On the day a Scorecard edition is published, every company with a row receives the same short notice, in every jurisdiction: where its rows are published and how to request a correction. It contains no request and no offer, and describes the rows and the process exactly as the reply letters did. (Operator ruling, 26 September 2026.)

What this is. A procedural-fairness channel, not a takedown line. A reply doesn't remove a Sourced row — a figure sourced to your own filing stands as a fact — but it lets you add your position next to it, in your words. Where your reply supplies a superseding primary source, the row itself is corrected.

A published reply, attributed and dated, is also the entry point to the operator-attestation tier: the record moves from "sourced to your public filings" toward "confirmed on the record by the operator." We won't characterise a reply as an endorsement of the platform, and we won't publish anything as verbatim that you haven't approved as verbatim. We publish good-faith replies that respond to the specific row; we may decline to publish material that is off-topic, defamatory of a third party, or not a genuine response — and we'll tell you if we do.