Reproducible
The same inputs produce the same score, regardless of who is reviewing. The judgement sits in the criteria, not in the assessor on the day.
WAZI turns due diligence on artisanal gold into a continuous, data-backed assessment. Every score traces to recorded facts and explicit criteria, so the same inputs always produce the same result, and any result can be interrogated down to the evidence behind it.
As responsible-gold rules tightened, the cost of documenting artisanal supply rose with them. Conventional due diligence answers with a narrative report compiled once a cycle. By the time it lands, conditions have often moved on, and the next audit repeats much of the work from scratch.
WAZI is built to fill the gaps that approach leaves, not to replace it. Assessment is continuous and evidence-based: it runs on explicit criteria and recalculates the moment a fact changes, so the documented picture stays current between audits rather than ageing until the next one.
The same inputs produce the same score, regardless of who is reviewing. The judgement sits in the criteria, not in the assessor on the day.
Every score traces to a finite set of recorded facts. When an auditor or regulator asks why, the answer is a list of evidence, not a paragraph of prose.
Counterparties and sites are scored on one normalised 0–100 scale. A 78 means the same thing across your whole portfolio and over time.
Responsible-sourcing rules are written for compliance teams, not for the diggers, cooperatives and field agents who actually witness conditions on the ground. They are rarely compliance professionals, yet they hold first-hand knowledge of the facts every assessment depends on. WAZI translates the standards into clear, guided forms they can complete directly, and turns what they record into structured evidence an auditor or buyer can read with confidence.
A gap is treated as a confidence signal, not a failing grade. Information that could not be obtained is recorded as exactly that, kept distinct from a genuine risk, so honest gaps in an informal operation never count against it.
The principle behind every score: uncovering more of the supply chain never lowers a rating on its own. Effort is rewarded; opacity is not.
The scoring engine rates the finding and the strength of the evidence behind it on two separate axes, and never folds them into one number. A clean result resting on a single self-declaration is not the same as one corroborated by an independent monitor, and the score reflects that difference exactly.
A verified result counts roughly 43% more than the same result from a single source. That is a deliberate incentive: repeat field visits, an operator’s own declaration, an independent monitor’s observation and public registers all push a score up by adding confidence.
Sources only corroborate when they are genuinely independent. Two reports from the same field team do not count twice. Independence is what turns data into verification.
A score is the same everywhere it is seen. It reflects the site or counterparty itself, not your relationship with them. When a profile is shared with a partner, the score travels unchanged, because it was computed once from intrinsic evidence.
WAZI’s scoring engine assesses a mine site, the actors and beneficiaries in the chain, and the whole sourcing opportunity that ties them together. Each is judged on criteria suited to it, and all land on the same 0–100 scale. Select one to see how its score is built.
A mine site is assessed from field-observable facts. The criteria sit in seven domains, six drawn directly from the OECD Annex II due-diligence framework plus a foundational identification domain. The set adapts to the type of location, so a washing station is not judged against criteria meant for a production pit, yet every site still lands on the same 0–100 scale.
| Domain | What is observed on the ground | Framework |
|---|---|---|
| Identification | GPS, site boundaries and operation type: is the site locatable and its record complete? | Foundational |
| Legality | Permits, licences and standing against the cadastre. | OECD Annex II |
| Human rights | Child labour, forced labour and working conditions. | OECD Annex II |
| Conflict & security | Armed-group presence and the conduct of security forces. | OECD Annex II |
| Environment | Mercury use, tailings, and land and water impact. | OECD Annex II |
| Health & safety | Protective equipment, hazard controls and incident response. | OECD Annex II |
| Community | Benefit-sharing, local engagement and grievance handling. | OECD Annex II |
Five findings act as red flags, matched to the OECD worst practices: child labour, forced labour, armed-group control, illegal taxation and conflict financing. Any one of them, confirmed, prevents a site being rated Clear, however high the rest of the score.
A site recalculates on every change: a new field visit, an uploaded permit, a reported incident, an expiring licence. There is no annual review to wait for, and a site that improves its conditions sees its rating rise as the evidence lands.
A short walkthrough shows how a score is built, traced and defended, end to end.
Request a demo