Most NI 43-101 technical reports are written with one audience in mind: the securities regulator. That is entirely rational — the QP's liability attaches to compliance, not investor comprehension. But this instinct produces documents that bury the information capital markets actually act on.
After more than a decade of authoring and reviewing technical reports, and spending time on the other side of the table advising capital-markets participants during due diligence, I have a clear picture of which sections a buy-side analyst, streaming company technical team or royalty fund reads first — and which ones they skip entirely. This post is about writing reports that serve both audiences without compromising your independence or your regulatory obligations.
1. The Executive Summary
The executive summary is the most read and least carefully drafted section of the average NI 43-101 report. Regulators read it for completeness; investors read it as the entire report when they are making a first-pass screening decision.
A well-written executive summary answers five questions in under three pages: What is the deposit type and location? What is the current resource estimate, and at what classification? What are the key geological controls on mineralisation? What work has been done, and when? What is the QP recommending next, and why?
The two most common failures are (1) reciting methodology without stating conclusions, and (2) omitting the resource table from the summary, forcing the reader to page to Item 14 before they can evaluate anything. Put the resource table in the executive summary. Every time.
Draft the executive summary last but write it as though the reader will see nothing else. The summary should be interpretive, not descriptive — state what the data mean, not just what the data are.
2. Item 14 — Mineral Resource Estimates
Unsurprisingly, Item 14 is the section every financial reader navigates to immediately after the summary. But what most QPs underestimate is that sophisticated investors do not just read the resource table — they read the classification rationale, the cut-off grade derivation, and the estimation methodology summary looking for internal consistency.
A resource table without a documented cut-off basis is a disclosure red flag in any technical review I have conducted. Cut-off grades should be derived from publicly stated or estimated operating parameters (haulage, processing, G&A, metallurgical recovery), or at minimum referenced to a comparable operation with an explanation of the analogue choice.
The classification rationale also matters more than many QPs appreciate. "Drill spacing is consistent with Indicated classification" is an assertion, not an argument. A brief paragraph explaining why that spacing is adequate given the geological continuity observed — supported by variogram ranges — is what distinguishes a defensible classification from one that will be challenged in a financing.
3. Item 7 — Geological Setting and Mineralisation
This section is where QPs can add the most interpretive value and usually where the writing is the most generic. Buy-side technical reviewers read Item 7 to understand deposit quality: Is this a structurally complex system that will require dense drilling to classify? Are there grade continuity risks? Is the mineralisation style amenable to bulk-tonnage extraction or is it narrow-vein?
A strong Item 7 describes the deposit model explicitly, positions it in context of regional analogues, and identifies the geological risks to resource continuity. Acknowledging risk is not weakness — it is the mark of a credible QP who understands their deposit.
"The QP who explains the three geological reasons a resource could be smaller than estimated will be trusted far more than the one who presents only upside."
4. Item 11 — Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security
Streaming companies and royalty funds have seen enough fraud and data quality failures that their technical teams now read Item 11 with the same scrutiny previously reserved for the resource table. QAQC failures — insufficient blanks, standards or duplicates; unexplained assay lab changes; undocumented sample security — are among the leading causes of re-estimation requirements in due diligence processes I have been involved with.
Item 11 should document: the sample preparation protocol for each sample type (RC chips, core, channel), the primary and umpire laboratories with their accreditation status, the QAQC insertion rates and acceptance/failure criteria actually applied, and any assay failures and how they were resolved. Vague language such as "industry-standard QAQC procedures were followed" is a yellow flag. Show the data.
5. Item 25 — Interpretations and Conclusions
The final interpretations and conclusions section is where the QP synthesises everything — and where the document most often trails off into bureaucratic language that adds no value. Investors read this section to understand what the QP actually thinks about the project: what is the upside case, what is the risk case, and what would change the QP's view of the deposit.
A useful conclusions section distinguishes between data-driven conclusions (supported by the work described in the report) and interpretive conclusions (the QP's professional judgement). Both are legitimate and valuable — but conflating them reduces credibility.
Writing for Two Audiences Without Compromising Either
The practical approach I use is to write first for regulatory compliance — making sure every required disclosure item is present and complete — then to review the document from the perspective of a first-time technical reader who knows nothing about the project. Wherever that reader would be confused or would have to flip between sections to answer a basic question, I add a cross-reference or a brief interpretive paragraph.
This costs perhaps two additional hours per report. The benefit — fewer investor queries, smoother financing processes, and a reputation for producing clear, investor-grade technical documents — is substantial.
Need a QP who writes reports that work for both regulators and capital markets? Contact JNA Resource Advisory to discuss your next technical report.