Create your JORC 2012 Table 1 against the Code itself — every criterion structured, evidenced, and in your words.
The verbatim Code open below your draft, your prior reports beside it.
Explore the live app on a sample JORC 2012 Table 1 — no install, just a work email for a one-time link.
Write the response, not the scaffolding. Every criterion opens with the verbatim JORC Code requirement it answers.
Keep the working with the report. Evidence, prior reports and work instructions, in one place.
Stand behind it years later. Who wrote what, who reviewed it, and when — on every plan.
Swipe the workspace sideways to see its full width.
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.
The method is clear, but the Code’s representivity bullet isn’t answered — no mention of the sampling protocols, or the standards and duplicates you actually ran. Can you put those measures on the record before this goes to Marguerite?
Read for approach, not wording. Your Table 1 must describe the work actually done on this deposit.
Diamond core from the 2025 first-pass programme (NQ2) was sampled on nominal 1.5 m intervals, broken at lithological contacts, and half-core split with a diamond saw. Certified reference materials and field duplicates were inserted in accordance with the project sampling protocol.
Quinn Downs Silver Prospect · Quinn Downs Mining Ltd · Published · 6 Nov 2025
Your words in the centre, the verbatim JORC 2012 Code in the reference panel beneath — every criterion mapped to what it answers, every response yours to write. What comes out is a Word document your ASX announcement is built from. Solo keeps your data on your device; Team and above hold it in your TableOne Flow account. The workspace, reference panel and evidence rail are on every plan — the review thread shown here ships with Team. · Sample data.
Solo launches first — the drafting tool, one user, unlimited reports, a paid licence — as a small pilot.
Windows desktop at launch; web, macOS and Linux planned.
What changes on your next Table 1
The same three, in full — from the first criterion to the day the announcement goes out.
Write the response, not the scaffolding. Every criterion opens with the verbatim JORC Code requirement it answers, tracked at a glance — addressed, not relevant, or neither. Already have a part-finished Table 1? New report seeds your draft from it, as responses only — every criterion still has to be marked by a person. On every plan, Solo included.
Keep the working with the report. Evidence links to the JORC section it justifies. Import your prior reports, work instructions and reference material into a library and keep any of it open while you draft — see how a criterion was approached before, while every response stays specific to the data in front of you.
Stand behind it years later. Every change — status, evidence, export — is recorded against a name and a timestamp, on every plan, Solo included. Team adds review in the app, where each criterion receives a decision (Endorse, Request change, Blocker, or Ask drafter) anchored to the criterion, not to a paragraph in a Word document that has moved — then the Competent Person’s sign-off. Your name stays on it for the life of the Public Report, which may outlast the company that published it — see the record behind the report, next.
All three in full on the product page — or how they fit the way you work on solutions: a Competent Person working alone, a drafter and Competent Person together, a contract Competent Person, an in-house team, or a consulting practice.
You write every word, structured to the Code, with the verbatim requirement and your prior reports beside you.
The judgement is the job.
Every criterion answered, or a reason on the record
“This means that an entity cannot leave a criterion in Table 1 blank or insert ‘not applicable’ or ‘not relevant’ because it does not think that the information is material… It must include a clear statement as to why it is not material.”
The harder failure isn’t a blank criterion. It’s a response that describes the work without answering what the criterion asks.
TableOne Flow tracks that criterion by criterion, against the verbatim Code requirement. Solo flags what is still unanswered. On Team, sign-off is held until every criterion carries a response or a stated reason.
Whether the reason is adequate is the Competent Person’s judgement, not the tool’s. We check that the answer is there. You decide whether it is good enough.
What leaves the tool
On Solo, your Table 1 exports as Word and Excel — the working files behind your ASX announcement. Team adds the Report PDF in publication form, shown on the product page, and the Audit Record below.
What a finished Table 1 looks like
Quinn Downs Mining Ltd
Table 1 — Appendix
Quinn Downs Silver Prospect — Exploration Results
Appendix to the Company’s Public Report — 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.
The Competent Person’s Statement, and the consent given under JORC Code 2012 Clause 9, appear in the Public Report this Table 1 accompanies — not in the appendix.
Section 1 on the reporting company’s letterhead — the form your Table 1 takes in the announcement. Team exports it this way, as the Report PDF, signed off by the Competent Person. · Sample data — a representative excerpt, not a real JORC report.
Solo · Word & Excel
Quinn Downs Silver Prospect · Quinn Downs Mining Ltd
JORC Code, 2012 Edition — Table 1
Section 1 — Sampling Techniques and Data
… continued from Drill sample recovery.
Logging
All core was logged geologically and geotechnically over its full length, recording lithology, alteration, mineralisation, veining and structure at a detail the Competent Person considers adequate for resource estimation and for subsequent mining and metallurgical study, should the prospect advance. Logging is qualitative for lithology and alteration, and quantitative for recovery, RQD and vein percentage. All core was photographed wet and dry before sampling.
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation
Core was sawn in half against a cutting line marked by the logging geologist, and the same half was submitted throughout so that the retained half remains available for check sampling. Samples were dried, crushed to nominal 3 mm and pulverised to 85 % passing 75 µm. Field duplicates were taken as quarter-core splits at 1 in 25; duplicate pairs reproduce within the precision limits set in the project sampling protocol, indicating the sample mass taken is adequate for the grain size of the mineralisation.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests
Silver was determined by a four-acid digest with an ICP-OES finish, which the laboratory reports as a near-total digestion, and results above the upper reporting limit were re-assayed by fire assay with a gravimetric finish. Certified reference materials and blanks were each inserted at 1 in 20, and the laboratory ran its own repeats and pulp duplicates in every batch. Standard recoveries and blank results fell within the control limits set in the project QAQC protocol and no material bias was identified; duplicate precision was acceptable for the reported grade range.
The remaining Section 1 criteria follow — each addressed, or documented “if not, why not”.
The working file you get at launch — the whole Table 1, continuing where the excerpt beside it leaves off. Each criterion a heading with your commentary beneath, yours to edit and hand on — no login needed, even years later. Excel gives you the same as a workbook. · Sample data.
Built for the sole Competent Person today — inside an exploration company, a mining company, or the consultancy they engage. The board approves the announcement; the market relies on it. Roles around the Competent Person — drafters and commenters, in the same office or different firms — arrive with Team and Business.
The record behind the report
Sign-off is the moment you put your name to the Table 1 documentation the announcement is built on. 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. When your signature covers the whole of the documentation, including work contributed by others, the tool makes that responsibility informed.
TableOne Flow
Audit Record
- Project
- Quinn Downs Silver Prospect
- Reporting entity
- Quinn Downs Mining Ltd
- Report type
- Exploration Results
- Commodity
- Silver
- JORC version
- JORC 2012
- Jurisdiction
- ASX
- Lifecycle
- published
Competent Persons
MAusIMM 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.
Evidence changes
No evidence change was recorded.
File checks are run on request, not automatically. An empty section means no change was found by the checks that were run; it does not certify that every linked document is unchanged.
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 Competent Person signed it, the review rounds, and the AI-assistance disclosure (here: none used). A fingerprint makes any later change detectable. Ships with Team; Solo exports the Table 1 as Word and Excel. · Sample data — a representative document, not a real JORC record.
What we won’t claim
The claims a JORC tool can honestly make are narrower than what you’ll be offered. Here are ours.
Not certified against the Code
No body certifies software against the JORC Code — not JORC, not the ASX, not a professional body. A tool that says otherwise is selling something that doesn’t exist.
Completeness, never adequacy
The tool checks that every criterion has been addressed or explicitly excluded. Whether what you wrote is adequate stays with the Competent Person, where the Code puts it.
Tamper-evident, and only that
A fingerprint on the exported record makes a later change detectable. It does not make one impossible, and we will not tell you it does.
No login required to read what you produce five years from now — or if we’re no longer here to provide one. Everything exports in a format independent of the tool that made it, evidence recorded alongside.
JORC 2012 is supported today. JORC 2026 support is targeted once the final Code and ASX settings are known; existing records stay tied to the Code version they were drafted under. See how we think about JORC for the boundary behind every decision in the product.
NI 43-101, other codes?
JORC is what TableOne Flow drafts today. If you’re interested in drafting under another reporting code, tell us.
For a drafter new to this: what the JORC 2012 Table 1 is, what makes someone a Competent Person, and how Competent Person consent works — with the clause numbers.
JORC explained
Understanding JORC 2012
Four short explanations of JORC 2012 and the requirements behind Table 1 — the Code itself, the Competent Person, the disclosure checklist, and how consent works.
The Australasian Code for reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, and the principles of Transparency, Materiality and Competence behind it.
The Clause 11 definition — the membership and experience a Competent Person needs, and what signing a report makes them responsible for.
What the disclosure checklist covers, when a Public Report needs it, and what the Competent Person who signs it takes on.
What a Competent Person’s prior written consent under Clause 9 covers, and the Appendix 2 Consent Form that records it.
Register interest
You’ll be replying to Scott Carpenter, who builds it — a software engineer, most recently Director of Technology APAC at Datamine Software, with close to thirty years on systems that have to survive an audit. He is not a Competent Person, and TableOne Flow does not pretend otherwise. More about who is behind this.
Tell us about your setup and we’ll reply within 2 business days. Solo launches first — the drafting tool, a paid licence — as a small pilot; Team and Business follow it. Pricing is announced at launch.
Solo at launch: every criterion mapped to the Code, “if not, why not” tracked, evidence attached, your reference library, a machine-readable change log, export to Word and Excel — and seeding a new Table 1 from one you already have. Competent Person review, sign-off, the Report PDF and the Audit Record are Team.
What’s in Solo · Compare all tiers · Cost your current process
Thanks — your enquiry has been received. We’ll reply within 2 business days.
While you wait: try the live demo (opens in a new tab) · what’s in Solo · how we think about JORC