Introducing the parker challenge
The Parker Challenge—honouring Dr Harry Parker’s legacy in reconciliation nomenclature and CRIRSCO codes—invited estimators to produce a classified resource model from the same dataset. Hosted by Scott Dunham of SD2, its aim was to quantify between-person variance, or “system noise,” across geologists, geoscientists and geo-statisticians.
Challenge, scope & objectives
Participants were charged to:
- Develop a classified, reportable resource estimate for long-term mine planning
- Compare outcomes to identify differences in approach, results and classification decisions
- Measure the extent of human-driven variability despite uniform data
Key definitions
Inferred, indicated & measured resources
Inferred – Limited evidence; suggests continuity but lacks full verification.
Indicated – Greater sampling; more reliable for planning.
Measured – Highest confidence, underpinned by exhaustive data and modelling.
System noise
System noise refers to the variance between individual estimators’ outputs. Higher noise reveals larger governance and process gaps.
Six drivers of estimation variability
- Data limitations – Incomplete sampling and data gaps introduce bias.
- Geological complexity – Irregular deposits and intricate mineralisation patterns challenge consistency.
- Personal bias – Bandwagon and first-mover effects sway interpretations.
- Uncertainty & risk – Assumptions and sampling errors compound unpredictability.
- Subjectivity & interpretation – Diverse methods and cut-off choices drive divergent outcomes.
- Regulatory compliance – Adhering to codes demands rigorous governance over data and models.
Results & insights
Variation in classification
Measured and indicated categories showed tighter clustering, while Inferred estimates varied widely. Notably, seasoned practitioners were more cautious assigning “Measured” status.
Volume & metal content spread
Even after excluding extremes, Measured + Indicated copper estimates spanned from –66% to +91% of the mean—nearly 10 000 kt Cu difference. This huge spread highlights how methodology and judgement shape outcomes.
Time investment & overanalysis
Longer analysis often amplified bias. Participants with quicker, instinct-driven workflows sometimes produced equally robust estimates, emphasising that overthinking can be counterproductive.
Implications for resource disclosure
The Parker Challenge underscores that strong governance and a single source of truth are essential to minimise system noise. Without standardised platforms, teams risk wasted effort, inconsistent reporting and diminished stakeholder trust.
Mitigating noise with governance platforms
Adopting a unified resource disclosure and reconciliation solution helps you:
- Standardise workflows to align all estimators
- Automate data consolidation for reliable, repeatable outputs
- Enhance transparency to strengthen stakeholder confidence
By embedding a robust governance framework, organisations can dramatically reduce system noise and deliver defensible, high-quality resource disclosures.
