177 Figure 5 – Target 6: Historical Drilling vs Drill Plan Figure 6 – Target 16: Historical Drilling vs Drill Plan Figure 7 – Target 65: Historical Drilling vs Drill Plan Figures 5, 6, 7. Historical drilling vs. AI-guided drill plans for Targets 6, 16, and 65 respectively, showing the difference in hole orientation and spacing between the two approaches Zone 65 yielded the most geologically significant result. The prevailing site geological model had interpreted a fault in that area as a barrier to eastward mineralization continuity. The DL model’s grade prediction was inconsistent with this structural interpretation. Subsequent drilling confirmed high-grade Cu beyond the fault, prompting the geological team to reinterpret the structure as a shear zone—a revised interpretation that opens the region west of the main underground infrastructure for systematic follow-up evaluation. Importantly, the model’s contribution was the identification of a grade anomaly inconsistent with the structural model; the geological reinterpretation was the product of geological reasoning applied to the new drilling data.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2