TableOne Flow · JORC 2012 Table 1 · Exploration Results · Mineral Resources · Ore Reserves
Create your JORC 2012 Table 1 —
every change on the record, right through to sign-off.
TableOne Flow maps every criterion to the Code, keeps the verbatim requirement beside you, and records every change against the person who made it — carrying the Table 1 from first draft to Competent Person sign-off, in your words, on your device.
Explore the live app in your browser on a sample JORC 2012 Table 1 — no install; a work email gets you in.
What comes out is a Word document your company’s ASX announcement is built from — drafted on the desktop app, where your project data stays on your device.
Solo launches first — the drafting tool — as a small invite-only pilot selected personally by the founder. Prefer to talk first? Register interest →
What a Table 1 looks like
Quinn Downs Mining Ltd
ASX: QDM · ASX Announcement
Quinn Downs Silver Prospect — Exploration Results
Table 1 — prepared under the JORC Code, 2012 Edition
Section 1 — Sampling Techniques and Data
Sampling techniques
Diamond drill core was sampled in nominal 1 m intervals, half-core split with a diamond saw, and submitted to a NATA-accredited laboratory. Sample representivity was assured through documented protocols and routine insertion of certified reference materials and field duplicates.
Drilling techniques
Diamond core (PQ/HQ/NQ) drilling was used throughout the programme, oriented where structural data was required…
Drill sample recovery
Core recovery was logged for every run and averaged above 95 % across the programme; no relationship was observed between recovery and grade…
Logging, and the remaining Section 1 criteria follow — each addressed, or documented “if not, why not” — ahead of Section 2, Reporting of Exploration Results, and the Competent Person’s Statement.
An excerpt of what a finished JORC 2012 Table 1 could look like — Section 1 on the reporting company’s own letterhead. On Solo, the launch tier, your Table 1 exports as a Word document and an Excel workbook; on Pro you also get it in this publication-form Report PDF, signed off by the Competent Person. · Sample data — a representative excerpt, not a real JORC report.
What changes on your next Table 1
The workspace those four moments happen in — the verbatim Code on the left, your words in the centre. Every criterion is mapped to its clause and your prior reports are to hand; you write every response yourself, structured to the Code, with no AI in between.
Section 1 · JORC2012_S1_01
Sampling techniques
RC holes were sampled at 1 m intervals via a face-sampling cyclone at the rig, with each interval riffle-split to a nominal 3 kg primary sample and two 1 kg field duplicates. Coal seam intersections were confirmed against downhole gamma logs. Proximate analysis and calorific value were completed on all seam intersections per AS 1038.
Can you state the riffle-split ratio and confirm it against the field-duplicate QA/QC before this goes to the CP? The 1 m interval is fine — I just want the split rate on the record.
You draft against the JORC 2012 Code itself — verbatim and on your device. The Section 1 Sampling techniques requirement stays open beside your words, with no AI in between. · Sample data. · Scroll to see the full width.
Never starting from a blank page. Every criterion is mapped to the Code clause it answers, with the verbatim JORC Code requirement open in a rail beside your draft. The “if not, why not” requirement is enforced — sign-off is blocked until every criterion is addressed or documented as not relevant or not material.
The CP sees a complete document, not a first draft. Review stays in the app — each criterion receives a decision (Endorse, Request change, Blocker, or Ask drafter), with comments anchored to the criterion, not to a paragraph in a Word document that has moved.
Your prior reports are at hand. Import your earlier published JORC reports into a reference library and keep them open beside your draft — see how a criterion was approached before, while every response stays specific to the data in front of you.
Your name is on the report for the life of the Public Report, which may outlast the company that published it. Every change is logged against a named identity with a timestamp. Evidence is pinned to the criterion it justifies. When the report is published, you export the Table 1 as a structured record independent of the tool that produced it — the record behind the report, further down this page.
What leaves the tool
On Solo — the launch tier — your Table 1 exports as a Word document and an Excel workbook, the working files that go into your company’s ASX announcement. On Pro, you also get the Report PDF in publication form and the Audit Record shown further down this page.
Solo · Word & Excel
Quinn Downs Silver Prospect · Quinn Downs Mining Ltd (ASX: QDM)
JORC Code, 2012 Edition — Table 1
Section 1 — Sampling Techniques and Data
Sampling techniques
Diamond drill core was sampled in nominal 1 m intervals, half-core split with a diamond saw, and submitted to a NATA-accredited laboratory. Sample representivity was assured through documented protocols and routine insertion of certified reference materials and field duplicates.
Drilling techniques
Diamond core (PQ/HQ/NQ) drilling was used throughout the programme, oriented where structural data was required.
Drill sample recovery
Core recovery was logged for every run and averaged above 95 % across the programme; no relationship was observed between recovery and grade.
Logging, and the remaining Section 1 criteria follow — each addressed, or documented “if not, why not”.
The Table 1 as a Word document — each criterion a heading with your commentary beneath, yours to edit and hand on; no login needed to open it years later. Excel gives you the same criteria as a workbook. · Sample data.
Pro · Report PDF
Quinn Downs Mining Ltd
ASX: QDM · ASX Announcement
Quinn Downs Silver Prospect — Exploration Results
Table 1 — prepared under the JORC Code, 2012 Edition
Section 1 — Sampling Techniques and Data
Sampling techniques
Diamond drill core was sampled in nominal 1 m intervals, half-core split with a diamond saw, and submitted to a NATA-accredited laboratory. Sample representivity was assured through documented protocols and routine insertion of certified reference materials and field duplicates.
Drilling techniques
Diamond core (PQ/HQ/NQ) drilling was used throughout the programme, oriented where structural data was required…
Drill sample recovery
Core recovery was logged for every run and averaged above 95 % across the programme; no relationship was observed between recovery and grade…
Competent Person’s Statement
The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Prof James Lee, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM (CP) #112387). Prof James Lee is a full-time employee of Quinn Downs Mining Ltd and has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Prof James Lee consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on that information in the form and context in which it appears.
On Pro, the same Table 1 in publication form — signed off by the Competent Person, exported alongside the Audit Record shown below. Quinn Downs Silver Prospect. · Sample data. · Scroll to see the full width.
Representative sample documents only — not an actual JORC report or ASX announcement. More on the exports on the product page.
Built for the sole CP today — inside an exploration company, a mining company, or the consultancy they engage. The board approves the announcement; the market relies on it. Designed for the full Table 1 team — same office, distributed teams, or different firms — when you need it.
The record behind the report
Sign-off is the moment your name goes on the ASX announcement. What matters then is knowing exactly what you signed — and being able to show it.
The Thursday problem
You get the Word document on a Thursday. Sign-off is Friday. You have no idea who changed the Table 1 criteria, when, or why — and your name is going on the ASX announcement. You are not reviewing a document. You are absorbing someone else’s risk.
TableOne Flow makes the Competent Person’s review the final step in a structured process, not a reconstruction of one. It shows you what changed and who changed it — it does not manufacture time or judgement you do not have. If only one Competent Person signs, that person is responsible and accountable for the whole of the documentation under the Code (Clause 11 guideline); the tool makes that responsibility informed.
TableOne Flow
Audit Record
- Project
- Quinn Downs Silver Prospect
- Reporting entity
- Quinn Downs Mining Ltd (ASX:QDM)
- Report type
- Exploration Results
- Commodity
- Silver
- JORC version
- JORC 2012
- Jurisdiction
- ASX
- Lifecycle
- published
Competent Persons
AusIMM (CP) #112387 1, 2
28 May 2026
All Competent Persons have signed off this report.
- Generated
- 2026-05-28T03:14:07Z
- Document hash
- See sidecar .audit-record.txt for the SHA-256 of this PDF.
AI assistance disclosure
AI assistance used: No · Invocations: 0. No AI critique panel was available in this build, or was available but not used during drafting.
Drift events
No post-sign-off or post-cp-return drift detected.
Schema and provenance
TableOne Flow 0.9.0 · build 9b2c1a4f7e30 · schema 3.1
PDF SHA-256: 7f3a9c14e0b86d52a1f4c037be95d8210c6e4af79b3d5012e8a6f1c47b9d2305
Compute the PDF’s hash and compare it to this line — a match means the record is unaltered since it was signed. Tamper-evident: a later change is detectable, not prevented.
The record that answers it — who signed and when, every criterion as the CP signed it, the review rounds, and the AI-assistance disclosure (here: none used). A fingerprint makes any later change detectable. Ships with Pro; Solo exports the Table 1 as Word and Excel. · Sample data — a representative document, not a real JORC record.
Completeness is checked in the tool. Adequacy stays with the Competent Person. See how we think about JORC for the boundary that governs every decision in the product.
Product integrity
Structured to JORC 2012
Every criterion is mapped to the Code clause it answers. Where a criterion is excluded, the “if not, why not” reason is required before the report reaches the CP — not flagged after.
Evidence pinned to criterion
Supporting documents attach to the criterion they justify, not to the Table 1 as a whole.
JORC 2026 planned
JORC 2012 is supported today. JORC 2026 support is targeted during the transition period once the final Code and ASX settings are known; existing JORC 2012 records remain tied to the Code version they were drafted under.
Every change attributed
Edits are recorded against the identity of the person who made them, with a timestamp.
Everything you produce exports in a format independent of the tool that produced it — the Table 1 as Word (.docx) and Excel (.xlsx) on Solo; on Pro, the Report PDF and the Audit Record PDF, with the evidence recorded alongside. No login required to read any of them five years from now.
No certification is claimed — no body certifies software against the JORC Code. We say so plainly.
Register interest
Tell us about your setup — whether you’re an exploration company reporting drill results to the ASX, a mining company with an in-house resource team, or a consultancy whose CPs sign for clients — and we’ll reply directly, usually within a week. We’ll share pricing when it’s set.
See Pricing and tiers. · Privacy policy.
Thanks — we’ll be in touch. We reply personally, usually within a week.