AI Footprint Mining Suite: Detailed User Guide

Complete reference for all 7 tools

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Getting Started
2. Tool 1: Obligations Mapper
3. Tool 2: Disclosure Readiness
4. Tool 3: Abatement & Baseline
5. Tool 4: Claim Integrity Gate
6. Tool 5: Social Licence & Consent
7. Tool 6: Risk & Controls Register
8. Tool 7: Evidence Pack
9. Workflow by Role
10. FAQ & Troubleshooting

GETTING STARTED

Accessing the Suite

1. Navigate to aixhuman.co/mining
2. Select your role from the available personas
3. Choose which tool to start with (Obligations Mapper recommended for first-time users)
4. Work at your own pace — no time limits, no sending data

How to Use Each Tool

Input Phase: Enter what you know, leave blank what you don't
Processing Phase: The tool processes your input and applies logic
Output Phase: You get results, gaps highlighted, next steps clear

Important Principles

• No benchmarks: Everything is based on your specific data
• No thresholds guessed: If it can't settle, it says "unsettled"
• Evidence-focused: Tests what you can prove, not what you feel
• Citation-backed: Every reference is on the Standards Register
• Privacy-respecting: Data never leaves your browser

TOOL 1: OBLIGATIONS MAPPER

PURPOSE

Identifies which Australian and international regulations may apply to your operation based on your profile.

WHAT IT ANSWERS

"Which compliance standards and regulations actually apply to my operation?"

HOW TO USE IT

Step 1: Enter Organisation Profile

Fill in what you know about your organisation:

• Organisation type: Mining operator, consultant, vendor, investor, regulator
• Commodity mix: Iron ore, gold, coal, copper, rare earths, lithium, oil, gas
• Geographic scope:
  • Primary operation location (state/country)
  • Parent company location (if subsidiary)
  • All operational locations
• Group structure: Standalone, subsidiary, parent company of >$500M

Leave fields blank if you don't know.

Step 2: Review Possible Exposure

The tool returns results in three categories:

Step 3: Understand the Results

For each applicable regulation, you get:

• Regulation name (e.g., "ASRS Scope 1+2 mandatory reporting")
• Threshold (e.g., "Group 2: ≥125,000 tCO2-e/year")
• Who publishes it (e.g., "Clean Energy Regulator")
• Link to standards register for full details

Step 4: Export or Refine

• Export: Save your obligations list as CSV
• Refine: Change inputs and re-run to see how thresholds shift

EXAMPLE WORKFLOW

Input:

• Organisation: Mining operator
• Commodity: Iron ore
• Location: Western Australia
• Group: Subsidiary of $2B parent

Output:

May reach you:
- ASRS Scope 1+2 (parent company liable)
- NGER (facility-level reporting)
- GRI 305 (emissions)
- CSRD (if EU-listed parent)
- IFRS S2 (if listed)
- Tailings Standard (GISTM)

Unsettled:
- Safeguard Mechanism (depends on parent's baseline year)
- Nature-related CSRD disclosure (depends on biodiversity impact)

Next step: Use Disclosure Readiness tool to test evidence for each obligation.

KEY INSIGHTS

• Your obligations depend on WHERE you are, WHAT you produce, and HOW BIG you are
• Being a subsidiary doesn't exempt you — parent company obligations may cascade
• New regs arrive regularly; revisit this tool annually

TOOL 2: DISCLOSURE READINESS

PURPOSE

Tests what evidence you can produce to satisfy each obligation identified in Obligations Mapper.

WHAT IT ANSWERS

"What evidence do I actually have for each compliance requirement? What am I missing?"

HOW TO USE IT

Step 1: Confirm Your Obligations

The tool shows you only the obligations that apply to your role and organisation profile.

Step 2: See the Scope

You'll see:

• Which obligations you're being tested on
• How many criteria (evidence items) apply
• Which ones you've answered
• Which remain

Step 3: Answer Criteria

For each question, you're asked: "Can you produce [evidence item]?"

Examples:

• "Can you produce a third-party assurance report on your Scope 1 emissions?"
• "Can you produce community engagement records from 2024?"
• "Can you produce board minutes showing climate risk oversight?"

For each question, answer:

• ✅ Yes — I have this evidence
• ❌ No — I don't have it
• ❓ Unsettled — I'm not sure / It's partial

Step 4: Review Your Readiness Score

The tool shows:

• Evidence you have (as %)
• Evidence gaps (as %)
• By category (Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3, social, risk, etc.)

Example:

Readiness Summary:
- Scope 1 emissions: 80% ready (1 gap: third-party assurance)
- Scope 2 emissions: 100% ready
- Scope 3 Cat 1 (AI services): 20% ready (4 gaps: vendor data, usage logs, attribution, baseline)
- Social licence: 40% ready (6 gaps: engagement records, heritage assessments, consent docs)
- Overall: 52% ready

Step 5: Export Your Results

• Export readiness scores by obligation
• Export gap list (what to collect next)
• Use as checklist for evidence collection

EXAMPLE WORKFLOW

Input:

• Role: Sustainability lead
• Applicable standards: ASRS, NGER, GRI 305, CSRD

Questions asked (~40 criteria):

1. "Can you produce a Scope 1 GHG inventory (ISO 14064-1)?" → Yes
2. "Can you produce a third-party assurance report?" → No
3. "Can you produce documented emissions reduction targets?" → Partial
4. "Can you produce Scope 3 Category 1 data (AI services)?" → No
5. ... (30+ more criteria)

Output:

NGER Readiness: 75% (5 gaps identified)
GRI 305 Readiness: 65% (8 gaps)
Scope 3 Cat 1 Readiness: 15% (9 gaps)

Top gaps to close:
1. Third-party assurance of emissions
2. AI vendor data and usage logs
3. Scope 3 baseline calculation
4. Community engagement documentation

Next step: Use Abatement & Baseline to plan how to address gaps.

KEY INSIGHTS

• Readiness testing is about evidence you hold, not about accuracy or compliance verdict
• A 100% readiness score is possible and means you have evidence for everything tested
• Different roles see different criteria (board member sees governance; operations sees controls)

TOOL 3: ABATEMENT & BASELINE

PURPOSE

Helps you sequence mitigation actions and track abatement opportunities by strategic priority.

WHAT IT ANSWERS

"Which emissions reduction levers should I prioritise? What's the most strategic path to my targets?"

HOW TO USE IT

Step 1: Define Your Baseline

Enter:

• Your baseline year (typically most recent year)
• Your baseline emissions (Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3 Cat 1)
• Your reduction target (e.g., "Net zero by 2050," "50% by 2030")
• Your target year

Step 2: Add Mitigation Levers

The tool presents levers in the mitigation hierarchy order:

For each lever, you enter:

• Annual reduction (tCO2-e/year)
• Implementation status: Indicative / Engineering study / Committed & funded
• Timeline: 2025 / 2026 / 2030 / TBD
• Confidence: High / Medium / Low

Step 3: Review Your Trajectory

The tool shows:

• Baseline emissions (your starting point)
• Stacked abatement (each lever's contribution)
• Projected trajectory (emissions by year)
• Headroom/exceedance (vs. your target)

Step 4: Identify Gaps

If your levers don't reach your target, the tool flags:

• Gap size (tCO2-e/year)
• Gap start year (when you miss target)
• Options: Shift to higher confidence levers / Add new levers / Revise target

Step 5: Export Your Abatement Plan

Export shows:

• Detailed lever-by-lever plan
• Confidence levels for each lever
• Timeline and dependencies
• Headroom analysis

EXAMPLE WORKFLOW

Input:

• Baseline: 500,000 tCO2-e/year (Scope 1+2)
• Target: 250,000 tCO2-e by 2035 (50% reduction)
• Levers:
  • Avoid: Switch 20% of open-pit to underground by 2030 → 80,000 tCO2-e/yr
  • Reduce: Optimise hauling by 15% by 2027 → 40,000 tCO2-e/yr
  • Substitute: Renewable energy for 40% of milling by 2028 → 60,000 tCO2-e/yr
  • Remove: Revegetation of closure areas by 2035 → 10,000 tCO2-e/yr
  • Compensate: Offsets for remaining 10,000 tCO2-e/yr by 2035

Output:

Trajectory:
2026: 500,000 (baseline)
2027: 460,000 (hauling + small wind)
2030: 340,000 (underground switch begins)
2035: 250,000 (target achieved)

Headroom analysis:
2030: 90,000 tCO2-e gap (offset with additional substitution)
2035: On target with offsets

Next step: Use Claim Integrity Gate to verify you can defend your abatement assumptions.

KEY INSIGHTS

• Order matters: Hierarchy ranks by strategic preference, not just speed
• Confidence matters: Indicative ideas are fine for planning; committed actions are for claims
• Offsets are last resort, not first choice: The hierarchy pushes towards real reduction

TOOL 4: CLAIM INTEGRITY GATE

PURPOSE

Verifies that claims you plan to publish have backing from published sources and pass basic integrity checks.

WHAT IT ANSWERS

"Can I actually defend the claims I want to make publicly?"

HOW TO USE IT

Step 1: Define Your Claim

Pick a claim you plan to make, e.g.:

• "We are carbon neutral"
• "We operate under Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)"
• "100% of our electricity is from renewable sources"
• "We have achieved Science-Based Targets initiative certification"

Step 2: Choose Claim Type

The tool categorizes claims:

• Carbon-related: Carbon neutral, net zero, carbon negative, emissions reductions
• Nature-related: Nature positive, biodiversity, water neutral
• Social: FPIC, community consent, human rights due diligence
• Assurance-related: Third-party certified, verified, assured

Step 3: Review the Gates

For your claim, the tool shows what published sources say should sit behind it:

Example: "We are carbon neutral"

Gate 1: Scope definition
What counts as "carbon"? (Scope 1? Scope 2? Scope 3?)
Published sources expect: Scope 1+2 minimum, ideally Scope 3 Cat 1+3

Gate 2: Baseline and reduction
How much did you reduce from baseline?
Published sources expect: ≥95% reduction from baseline before claiming neutral

Gate 3: Offset quality
What offsets make up the remaining ~5%?
Published sources expect: Gold Standard / VCS / ACCUs / similar certification

Gate 4: Verification
Who verified this?
Published sources expect: Third-party assurance

Gate 5: Disclosure
What did you publish?
Published sources expect: Full methodology in sustainability report

Step 4: Assess Your Evidence Against Gates

For each gate, you enter:

• ✅ Met — I have evidence for this gate
• ⚠️ Partial — I have partial evidence
• ❌ Not met — I don't have evidence

Step 5: Get Your Verdict

The tool shows:

• Defensible: You meet all gates with evidence
• Defensible with caveats: You meet most gates; note the gaps
• Not defensible: You have major gaps; don't publish this claim

Step 6: Export Your Claim Assessment

Export shows:

• Claim definition
• Gates definition (from published sources)
• Your evidence against each gate
• Verdict
• Recommended actions (provide evidence / narrow claim / don't publish)

EXAMPLE WORKFLOW

Claim: "We use AI to reduce operational emissions"

Gates:

1. Identify AI tools in use
2. Log usage (prompts, tokens, compute)
3. Attribute emissions to each tool
4. Compare against baseline (what it would cost without AI)
5. Show net impact (Is AI reducing net emissions?)

Your evidence:

• Gate 1: ✅ We use ChatGPT for process optimisation
• Gate 2: ❌ We don't log usage separately
• Gate 3: ❌ We don't have vendor emission factors
• Gate 4: ⚠️ We have a baseline estimate, but no formal study
• Gate 5: ❌ We can't show net impact

Verdict: Not defensible. You'd need to either:

• Provide gates 2, 3, 5 (significant effort)
• Narrow claim to "We experiment with AI tools" (no impact claim)
• Don't publish the claim

Next step: If you want to claim the impact, use Evidence Pack to plan evidence collection.

KEY INSIGHTS

• Published sources are your authority, not the tool
• The tool only checks gates, not accuracy (a claim can meet gates but still be wrong)
• "Defensible" doesn't mean "compliant" — it means you have evidence

TOOL 5: SOCIAL LICENCE & CONSENT

PURPOSE

Records whether you have documented process evidence for community engagement, rights, and heritage.

WHAT IT ANSWERS

"Do I have a paper trail showing genuine engagement and informed consent?"

HOW TO USE IT

Step 1: Confirm Your Role

The tool shows criteria specific to your role (community lead will see different questions than board member).

Step 2: Answer Process Evidence Questions

You're tested on whether you have process records, not whether you feel you did engagement.

Examples:

• "Do you have meeting agendas from community engagement sessions?" (Not: "Did you engage?")
• "Do you have documented responses to community concerns?" (Not: "Were concerns important?")
• "Do you have evidence of Indigenous rights due diligence?" (Not: "Do you respect rights?")
• "Can you show how community feedback changed your project?" (Not: "Were you listening?")

Step 3: Document Your Evidence

For each criterion, indicate:

• ✅ Yes — I have the record
• ❌ No — I don't have it
• ❓ Partial — I have some records but not all
• 🚫 N/A — This doesn't apply to our operation

Step 4: Review Your Social Licence Readiness

The tool shows:

• Process evidence score (%)
• Gaps by category: Engagement / Rights / Heritage / Closure
• Critical gaps: Questions that need immediate attention

Example:

Social Licence Readiness: 45%

Engagement & consultation: 60% ready (gaps: 2024 meeting records, response log)
Indigenous rights & FPIC: 30% ready (gaps: FPIC documentation, rights assessment)
Heritage management: 50% ready (gaps: heritage impact assessment, community review)
Closure planning: 60% ready (gaps: closure engagement record)

Step 5: Create Your Social Licence Action Plan

Export your gaps as a checklist:

• What records to collect
• Who owns collection
• Timeline (before next audit)
• Evidence format needed

Step 6: Export for Audit

Your evidence pack includes:

• All your process records (uploaded or referenced)
• Dates and participants
• Citations to regulatory requirements
• Gap analysis

EXAMPLE WORKFLOW

Your operation: Gold mine in Victoria with Indigenous stakeholder group

Questions asked:

1. "Can you provide a record of pre-project engagement with affected communities?" → ✅ Yes (2019 meeting notes)
2. "Do you have documented evidence of what information was shared?" → ⚠️ Partial (slides exist, not meeting summary)
3. "Do you have record of community concerns raised?" → ✅ Yes (concern log)
4. "Can you show how you responded to each concern?" → ❌ No (response log doesn't exist)
5. "Do you have evidence of Indigenous rights assessment?" → ❌ No (assessment was verbal)
6. "Can you provide Free, Prior and Informed Consent documentation?" → ❓ Unsettled (unsure if our engagement meets FPIC definition)

Readiness score: 40%

Action plan:

• Create response-to-concerns log (by March 2025)
• Complete formal Indigenous rights assessment (by March 2025)
• Document FPIC process against published definition (by April 2025)
• Obtain community review of heritage impact assessment (by April 2025)

Next step: Use Evidence Pack to export the action plan and your existing records.

KEY INSIGHTS

• Social licence is about documented process, not good intentions
• FPIC is specific: Free, Prior, Informed, Consent (all four matter)
• Heritage and rights are not the same — they're assessed separately

TOOL 6: RISK & CONTROLS REGISTER

PURPOSE

Tracks which environmental and safety controls exist, which operate, and which are tested by external parties.

WHAT IT ANSWERS

"Which risks do we actually control? Which controls actually work? How do we know?"

HOW TO USE IT

Step 1: Map Your Risk Domains

The tool covers 10 key risk domains for mining:

1. Climate transition risk
2. Physical climate risk (e.g., water stress, extreme weather)
3. Tailings management
4. Water and biodiversity
5. Safety and occupational health
6. Human rights and labor
7. Heritage and culture
8. Closure and rehabilitation
9. Disclosure integrity
10. Supply chain integrity

Step 2: For Each Domain, Describe Your Controls

For tailings management, for example:

• Control: "Annual tailings management plan reviewed by expert panel"
  • Design (how it works in theory)
  • Implementation (what actually happens)
  • Effectiveness level: Not in place / Designed / Operating / Assured (externally tested)
  • Last test date
  • Tester (internal / external)

Step 3: Assess Each Control's Maturity

Rate each control:

Step 4: Document External Assurance

For critical controls, indicate:

• Who tested it (auditor name, third-party certifier)
• When they tested it
• What they found
• How findings were addressed

Step 5: Identify Control Gaps

The tool flags:

• Controls that are "not in place" (highest priority)
• Controls that are "designed" but not yet operating
• Controls operating but never externally tested

Step 6: Export Your Risk Register

Export shows:

• Risk domain
• Control description
• Design / Implementation / Testing documentation
• Assurance reports (or gaps)
• Action items to raise control maturity

EXAMPLE WORKFLOW

Risk domain: Tailings management

Controls:

1. Annual tailings management plan

   • Status: Operating
   • Internal testing: Yes (annually)
   • External assurance: No (gap)
   • Action: Engage GISTM-certified auditor

2. Tailings dam safety inspection

   • Status: Assured
   • Internal testing: Yes (quarterly)
   • External assurance: Yes (annual engineer certification)
   • Last audit: 2024-06-15

3. Closure plan with tailings disposal

   • Status: Designed
   • Internal testing: Pilot only
   • External assurance: No
   • Action: Operationalize closure plan; obtain external review

Risk & Controls Summary:

Tailings domain: 60% assured
- 1 control with external assurance
- 1 control operating (needs assurance)
- 1 control still in design phase

Next step: Create action plan to advance controls to "assured" status.

KEY INSIGHTS

• Control effectiveness matters more than control existence
• External assurance is gold standard; internal testing is baseline
• Gap in assurance = gap in evidence for your disclosure

TOOL 7: EVIDENCE PACK

PURPOSE

Generates a single, traceable export of all your evidence, answers, and citations for audit submission.

WHAT IT ANSWERS

"What does my complete evidence package look like? What's ready for audit?"

HOW TO USE IT

Step 1: Review All Your Work

The tool summarises what you've done across all 6 prior tools:

• Obligations identified
• Readiness assessed
• Gaps documented
• Claims checked
• Social licence evidence listed
• Controls registered

Step 2: Choose Export Format

Select how you want to export:

• PDF: For stakeholders, board, auditors (formatted report)
• CSV: For your records, further analysis (raw data)
• JSON: For integration with other systems

Step 3: Tag Your Evidence

For each item in your pack, you can:

• ✅ Mark as "verified by third party"
• ⚠️ Mark as "self-assessed"
• 📎 Attach supporting documents (optional)
• 📝 Add notes or caveats

Step 4: Generate the Pack

The tool creates:

• Cover page: Organisation name, export date, scope
• Executive summary: Obligations / Readiness / Gaps / Actions
• Detailed tables: By standard, by tool, by gap
• Citations: Every standard linked to Standards Register
• Audit trail: Timestamp, user, version

Step 5: Share with Auditor

Give your auditor:

• PDF (for review)
• CSV (if they want to load into their own system)
• Link to the aixhuman.co/mining/standards register (so they can verify sources)

Step 6: Update and Re-export

As you close gaps and update your status:

• Mark items as resolved
• Re-run the tool
• Generate updated pack
• Version-track your progress

EXAMPLE EXPORT STRUCTURE

=== EVIDENCE PACK v2 ===
Organisation: AcmeMining Ltd
Generated: 2026-09-15
Status: Preparing for Oct 2027 ASRS lodgement

=== EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ===
Obligations identified: 17
  - ASRS Scope 1+2: In scope
  - NGER: In scope
  - GRI 305: In scope
  - CSRD: Not in scope (non-EU parent)

Readiness score: 58%
  - Evidence you have: 43 items
  - Evidence gaps: 31 items
  - Critical gaps: 5 (offsets, AI data, heritage assessment)

Claims assessed: 4
  - "Carbon neutral": Not defensible (offset gates fail)
  - "FPIC in place": Partial (missing 2024 engagement records)
  - "Renewable energy transition": Defensible with caveats
  - "Science-based targets": Partial (needs external certification)

Controls status:
  - 12 controls operating
  - 3 controls assured (externally tested)
  - 2 controls need assurance

Action items: 8
  - Collect AI vendor usage data (by Dec 2025)
  - Complete heritage impact assessment (by Jan 2026)
  - Obtain external audit of tailings control (by Feb 2026)
  - Formalize FPIC consent process (by Mar 2026)

=== DETAILED EVIDENCE BY OBLIGATION ===

ASRS Scope 1+2 Reporting
- Obligations: ✅ 4/4 identified
- Evidence: ⚠️ 8/12 items collected
  - ✅ Scope 1 inventory (ISO 14064-1)
  - ✅ Scope 2 grid emissions
  - ❌ Third-party assurance (gap)
  - ⚠️ Scope 3 Cat 1 (partial data)
- Standards: ASRS, NGER, GRI 305
- Audit readiness: Ready (with caveats: Scope 3 Cat 1 partial)

[... continues for each obligation ...]

=== STANDARDS REGISTER CITATIONS ===
All standards referenced in this pack are defined in:
aixhuman.co/mining/standards
Last updated: 2026-09-11

KEY INSIGHTS

• Evidence Pack is your single source of truth for audit
• Version it — every time you close a gap, re-export with new version
• It's not a compliance verdict (audit is) — it's your evidence submission

WORKFLOW BY ROLE

Board Member or Executive

Start here: Obligations Mapper → Disclosure Readiness → Claim Integrity Gate → Evidence Pack

Focus: Governance, strategy, disclosure accountability
Time: 1–2 hours

Outcome: Understand what compliance applies, where you're ready, where claims might fail, what evidence package will go to audit

Sustainability or ESG Lead

Start here: Obligations Mapper → Disclosure Readiness → Abatement & Baseline → Claim Integrity Gate → Evidence Pack

Focus: Inventory, transition planning, readiness, evidence closure
Time: 2–4 hours (depending on organisation size)

Outcome: Complete readiness assessment, abatement strategy, evidence checklist, audit-ready package

Operations or Mine Planner

Start here: Abatement & Baseline → Risk & Controls Register → Evidence Pack

Focus: Sequencing mitigation, control effectiveness, operational planning
Time: 1–2 hours

Outcome: Mitigation roadmap, control assessment, readiness for mine closure planning

Community or Indigenous Engagement Lead

Start here: Social Licence & Consent → Evidence Pack

Focus: Process evidence, FPIC documentation, heritage
Time: 1–2 hours

Outcome: Assessment of social licence readiness, action plan for missing records, evidence pack for auditor

Investor or Analyst (Read-Only)

Start here: Obligations Mapper → Disclosure Readiness → Claim Integrity Gate

Focus: Assessing disclosure quality and credibility
Time: 30–60 minutes

Outcome: Confidence in published claims, readiness for compliance, recommendations to management

Regulator or Assurer

Start here: Standards Register → All tools (review mode)

Focus: Auditing evidence, testing control maturity, verifying claims
Time: 2–6 hours (depending on scope of audit)

Outcome: Evidence assessment, finding documentation, recommendations for remediation

FAQ & TROUBLESHOOTING

General Questions

Q: Is my data secure?
A: Yes. All data stays in your browser. Nothing is sent to our servers without your explicit export request. When you export, you control the format and recipients.

Q: Can I save my progress?
A: Yes, if you sign in (free account). Without login, your work is saved in your browser session only. Closing the browser clears it.

Q: Can I work with a team?
A: The current version is individual. Teams can share the same organisational profile and work independently, then compare Evidence Packs.

Q: Do I need to answer all questions?
A: No. "Unsettled" is a valid answer. The tool will flag what you've skipped.

Q: What if the tool asks about something that doesn't apply?
A: Answer "N/A" or "Unsettled." The tool will show it as not applicable in results.

Technical Questions

Q: Which browsers are supported?
A: Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari (all current versions). No IE11.

Q: What if I get an error?
A: Refresh the page. If the error persists, clear your browser cache and try again. If still stuck, reach out to support with a screenshot.

Q: Can I use this on mobile?
A: The tool is desktop-optimised. Mobile works for viewing results, but input forms are better on desktop.

Data Questions

Q: Can I import my existing ESG data?
A: The current version supports manual entry or CSV copy/paste. Structured import is on the roadmap.

Q: Can I integrate with our ERP / ESG platform?
A: Yes. Export your Evidence Pack as JSON and hand it to your IT team for integration. Custom integrations are available on request.

Q: How do I handle multi-facility operations?
A: The tool supports multiple facilities. Create separate entries for each facility's Scope 1, then aggregate for Scope 2 and Scope 3.

Compliance Questions

Q: Will this tool "approve" me for ASRS?
A: No. No tool approves compliance. This tool helps you prepare evidence and identify gaps. Compliance is determined by regulators and auditors.

Q: Can I use this for ESG rating agencies?
A: Yes. The tool covers GRI, CSRD, IFRS S2, CDP, and others. Evidence Pack can be exported to rating platform formats.

Q: Is this tool ASIC-approved?
A: No regulatory body "approves" tools. This tool aligns with published standards (ASRS, NGER, GRI, IFRS S2, CSRD). Use it as prep material, not as a compliance guarantee.

Claim Questions

Q: What if my claim doesn't pass the Claim Integrity Gate?
A: You have three options:

1. Narrow the claim (e.g., "We are transitioning towards carbon neutral" instead of "We are carbon neutral")
2. Collect the missing evidence (e.g., third-party assurance)
3. Don't publish the claim

Q: Can I publish a claim marked "defensible with caveats"?
A: Yes, if you disclose the caveats. Example: "We are carbon neutral (excluding Scope 3 Category 5: waste disposal, which represents <1% of our footprint)."

Q: What if published sources disagree on what a claim means?
A: The tool shows multiple published definitions. You pick which standard you're claiming against, then defend against that standard.

GETTING SUPPORT

Issues with the tool: Email support@aixhuman.co or visit aixhuman.co/help

Questions about standards: Check the Standards Register (aixhuman.co/mining/standards) for full text and sources

Regulatory interpretation: Consult a compliance lawyer or your auditor — AI Footprint is evidence-management software, not legal advice

Claim defensibility: Use the Claim Integrity Gate, then get external review from your auditor or ESG consultant

NEXT STEPS

1. Pick your role at aixhuman.co/mining
2. Start with Obligations Mapper (5 minutes)
3. Move to Disclosure Readiness (30 minutes)
4. Assess claim defensibility with Claim Integrity Gate (15 minutes)
5. Export your Evidence Pack (5 minutes)
6. Share with audit team for discussion

You're ready. Start now.

aixhuman.co/mining