PROPOSED AI APPLICATION

Mineral material review aid

Visual grades differ between reviewers

Mining service contractorsSpecialist evaluationProposed solution scope

The problem and the proposed outcome

Application: Mining service contractors — Mineral material review aid
Problem to solve: Visual grades differ between reviewers
Target buyer: Mine service businesses, contract coordinators
Intended use: Employee / expert own workflow; internal business solution
Benefit to test: Test whether visual review becomes more useful or efficient at an acceptable error level.
Potential delivery: Internal application, reviewer dashboard, private assistant or authorized user portal; choose one surface after validating the workflow.

AI method: Computer vision and visual matching
Method code: V
AI contribution: Use a learned visual model to find relevant patterns, measurements or image matches in an explicitly defined setting; provide reviewable evidence.
Output artifact: Visual findings, measurements or ranked image matches with review controls.
Core modules: Permitted calibrated images → visual model → localized findings / matches → qualified review
Simple baseline: Manual inspection, metadata search and established non-AI measurement methods.
Why test AI: Could help with visual patterns or large image archives; capture conditions and expert validation strongly affect usefulness.

Pilot track: Specialist evaluation
Required data: Controlled material images; qualified annotations
Data readiness: Rights-cleared representative images, capture conditions, task-specific labels and qualified ground truth are needed.
First development step: Define the visual task, obtain rights-cleared representative samples, annotate qualified ground truth and benchmark current review.
Initial MVP scope: One defined task, one permitted dataset and one reviewer workflow. Manual upload or authorized export first; no unattended external action. Validate the model before live integration.
Demo data: Synthetic or licensed public samples may illustrate the workflow. Real benefit and model performance need representative authorized held-out data.
Buyer validation question: Ask Mine service businesses, contract coordinators: show a recent case where visual grades differ between reviewers, record the present effort or error, and confirm whether the required data can lawfully be used.

Primary success metric: Qualified-reviewed grade agreement
Model evaluation: Evaluate task-appropriate detection precision/recall, grading agreement, measurement error or search relevance by capture condition.
Metric target: Set after baseline measurement; no improvement or accuracy result asserted.

Specialist review: Yes
Human review boundary: Qualified domain specialist reviews evidence, interpretation and any consequential action. Start with controlled offline or shadow evaluation; no autonomous clinical, financial, employment, industrial or safety decision.
Domain review: Qualified technical teams approve specifications and procedures. The first MVP provides reviewed evidence or planning; it does not directly control machines or safety systems.
Related micro-ERP catalogue IDs: IWA-B-B4C34184776A; IWA-B-F4EB107D054B; IWA-B-BA8668AFB94B
Integration status: Potential segment link only; no product integration implemented.