deliberation. Weighting schemes, thresholds, and policy responses remain context-specific and must reflect national priorities, institutional capacity, and risk tolerance. The tools identify exposure, constraints, and opportunity pathways; they do not determine outcomes. Their function is to improve transparency and coherence, not to replace political judgement. Implementation faces governance challenges. Data fragmentation across geological surveys, energy authorities, industrial ministries, and environmental agencies remains a persistent constraint. Project maturity data may not be systematically classified; industrial asset inventories may be incomplete; and sustainability indicators may lack harmonization. Coordinated application therefore requires structured collaboration. Public technical institutions, such as geological surveys, statistical offices, regulatory agencies, and planning ministries, play a central role in consolidating datasets, validating assumptions, and ensuring methodological consistency. Their mandate for neutral, evidence-based analysis strengthens credibility and continuity across political cycles. Midstream considerations show why integration is necessary. Processing and refining facilities are capital-intensive, often requiring long lead times and stable policy environments. Utilization rates determine economic viability; underused facilities quickly become stranded assets. Enabling conditions, such as a reliable energy supply, water availability, transport infrastructure, skilled workforce, and regulatory predictability, are decisive. Decisions to develop or repurpose midstream capacity, therefore, cannot rely solely on mineral endowment. They require alignment among resource maturity, industrial capability, and sustainability constraints. By linking nexus criticality with midstream readiness, the integrated framework supports disciplined evaluation of these interdependencies, reducing the risk of misaligned investments and reinforcing resilience across the value chain. 8. METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS, SENSITIVITY CONSIDERATIONS, AND RESEARCH AGENDA The proposed workflow is designed as a screening-level instrument. It structures dialogue and improves transparency, but it does not replace detailed feasibility studies, financial modelling, or environmental impact assessments. Results should therefore be interpreted as indicative signals of systemic exposure, supply risks, and midstream readiness rather than definitive conclusions. Certain components rely on structured expert judgement, particularly where standardized data are incomplete or unavailable. Although scoring scales and documentation protocols are designed to increase consistency, expert inputs inevitably introduce subjectivity. Transparent recording of assumptions, peer review, and iterative refinement are necessary safeguards. Outcomes are also sensitive to weighting choices and scoring thresholds. Different policy priorities, such as security of supply, industrial upgrading, and environmental performance, may justify alternative weighting schemes. Sensitivity analysis is therefore essential to test the robustness of results and avoid over-interpretation of marginal score differences. Further validation requires pilot applications across diverse national contexts, followed by retrospective testing. Comparing screening outputs with actual project performance and policy outcomes will help refine indicators, adjust normalization approaches, and improve predictive relevance. Finally, integration with complementary analytical methods, such as life-cycle assessment, 66
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2