Solutions
CP & Drafter Team
The JORC 2012 Table 1 arrives in your inbox as a Word document. You send comments. A revised version comes back. By the time you’re reviewing the final draft, you’re not reviewing a record — you’re reconciling one. TableOne Flow makes the CP’s review the final step in a structured process, not a reconstruction of one.
What the CP actually needs at sign-off
The Exploration Geologist drafted sampling and QAQC. The Resource Geologist drafted geological interpretation and estimation. The Mining Engineer drafted modifying factors. By the time those drafts reach the CP, they’ve usually been through two or three email rounds and the evidence is somewhere in a shared drive that not everyone can navigate.
The problem is not the team. The problem is that Word documents cannot show the CP who wrote which criterion, what evidence was attached when, or what changed between the version they saw last week and the one in their inbox today.
Each criterion has a history. The CP can read it
Evidence attaches to each criterion as the draft is built. Incomplete criteria and criteria with no attached evidence file are flagged before the draft reaches the CP — gaps are a drafting problem, not a review problem.
Your project data stays on your device on the Solo tier. The CP signs what the team wrote, not what a model generated — no AI drafts or processes criterion responses on any tier.
In Pro, when a drafter updates a criterion, the change is logged against their identity with a timestamp. The CP works through the report criterion by criterion, recording a decision for each — Endorse, Request change, Blocker, or Ask drafter — with a structured comment returned to the drafter. The audit trail shows exactly what changed, who changed it, and when.
At sign-off, the CP has reviewed the record, not just the output.
Section 1 · Criterion 6
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests
Drafter response
Samples were submitted to a NATA-accredited laboratory for fire assay with an AAS finish. Certified reference materials, blanks and field duplicates were inserted into the sample stream and assessed against control limits…
CP decision
Comment to drafter
Please cite the controlling QA/QC procedure (WGF-GEOL-008) and state the CRM insertion rate and the acceptance window applied. The control-limit assessment needs to reference the standards used before I can endorse this criterion.
CP review — a decision per criterion (Endorse, Request change, Blocker, or Ask drafter), with the comment anchored to the criterion, not to a paragraph in a Word document. · Pro tier · Sample data.
Prior work, in front of the drafter
When a drafter returns to a criterion they last addressed on a different project, the on-device reference library brings the prior published report forward — open beside the draft as a read-only reference. The drafter sees how the criterion was approached before, keeping the team’s approach consistent, while every response stays specific to the current data.
On Pro, the CP’s reference library is planned to sync across their devices, private to them. A library shared across the whole team is part of Business.
Tiers for CP and drafter teams
Pro — one CP licence with a configured set of named drafters and the full CP review workflow. Right for a CP working with a small team. See what’s included in Pro.
Business — multiple CPs, each responsible for their own Table 1 section. The shared team account, practice-level portfolio, client workspace separation and internal-reviewer QA gate are planned. Right for larger teams or practices managing several projects at once. See what’s included in Business.
Getting started
Register interest — tell us how many drafters typically work on a report and how your current review process works. We’ll write back directly.