GISTM.ai is a multi-tenant platform for compliance management against the 77 Requirements of the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management. Compliance teams build the facility's dossier over months, with approval governance and complete traceability. AI accelerates when requested, and never decides.
Open GISTM.ai
The platform runs in a dedicated window, utilizing the full screen.
Public product specification · Rev. 2026.1
A multi-tenant platform for compliance management against the 77 Requirements of the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management. It is not an audit generator or a questionnaire. Compliance teams build the facility's dossier over months, with approval governance and complete traceability. AI accelerates when requested, and never decides.
The entire interface is in Brazilian Portuguese, using terminology from the official ICMM translation; the terms on screen are the terms the auditor will use. A ⌘K command palette navigates between Requirements, pages, and facilities.
- 01 Access levels
- 02 The living record
- 03 Approval governance
- 04 Documents and AI
- 05 ITRB and Engineer
- 06 Dashboard, gaps, report
- 07 Ten screens
- 08 Data and operations
- 09 Demo
- 10 Design system
The six topic areas
Each of the 77 Requirements belongs to one of the six areas. These areas organize the record, the dashboard breakdown, the report, and the Witness Column.
- Communities
- Knowledge base
- Design and operation
- Management
- Emergency
- Disclosure
The five ratings
A Requirement carries exactly one rating. Each rating has its own glyph shape, never a color code, so the record remains readable in print, in grayscale, and for people with color vision deficiency.
Meets
Weight 1
Partially Meets
Weight 0.5
Does Not Meet
Weight 0 · deficiency
Not Applicable
Excluded from denominator
Not Evaluated
Counts against Coverage
§01
Access is a governance tool, not a convenience. The five levels separate those who assess from those who ratify, and that is what makes the Conformance metric defensible before an auditor.
| Level | Views and actions |
|---|---|
| Platform Admin | Views and edits everything across all companies. Creates companies and invites their first users. The only level that can reset the demo tenant. |
| Company Admin | Manages facilities, users, and assignees for their own company. Cannot view any other company. |
| Assessor | Assesses Requirements, attaches evidence, and submits work for approval. Cannot approve their own submission. |
| Approver | Ratifies or returns submissions with comments. Can also assess. |
| Viewer | Read-only access to dashboards and reports. No write path. |
There is no public sign-up. An administrator sends an invitation by email address. The user enters that same address and receives a six-digit code via email or SMS. The session then persists in the browser, so daily work does not require logging in again.
Users with a verified identity and no pending invitation do not see an error; they see a screen explaining how to request access.
Every facility-scoped server method confirms that the facility belongs to the caller's company before doing anything else. Isolation is not a filter applied to a query; it is a method precondition.
An identifier belonging to another tenant returns the exact same response as a nonexistent identifier. Nothing in the response confirms that the other facility exists.
Deployment, hosting, and vendor controls are documented separately in the Trust Center.
§02
There are no assessment cycles that start and end. Each facility has a permanent record of the 77 Requirements, created the moment the facility is set up and evolving continuously from there. Conformance is a state the facility is in, not an event it went through.
Four states per Requirement
The rating answers how compliant. The state answers where it stands in governance. Workflow state is encoded by opacity, never by hue.
Not started
Open in the record; no one has worked on it yet.
In progress
An Assessor is drafting the rating and attaching evidence.
Pending approval
Submitted. In the Approver queue, awaiting a decision.
Approved
Ratified. Only now does it count toward the official number.
Two metrics track the facility
57,6%
Conformance
Weighted percentage of applicable Requirements, counting only approved assessments. Meets is weighted 1; Partially Meets is weighted 0.5.
75,3%
Coverage
How many of the 77 Requirements have an assigned rating, the honest answer to "how much of the dossier actually exists."
Proposed work appears dimmed on screen, but does not move the official number. This is the record's most important behavior: no one raises the metric by proposing something. Only an Approver moves it.
A timeline shows the evolution of both metrics since the record was opened, making the dossier's history readable without reading a single Requirement.
Independence disclaimer · GISTM.ai supports the operator's internal compliance management. It does not constitute, replace, or simulate an independent audit, an ITRB opinion, or a determination by the Engineer of Record.
Witness Column
The entire facility in 692 × 30 pixels: 77 cells grouped across the 6 topic areas. The cells fill as work is ratified, which is why the page darkens over the months. Deficiency is the only thing rendered in Oxide; workflow state is indicated by opacity.
§03
The Assessor works on the Requirement and submits it. The Approver sees a dedicated queue, where the proposed rating is presented as a diff against the official rating, and then approves or returns it with a comment.
Batch approval exists because teams genuinely ratify multiple Requirements at once, and forcing a decision per screen would push people to approve without reading.
Each Requirement has an assignee and a deadline. Overdue items are flagged in the record table and dashboard; a deadline no one sees is not a deadline.
Every event enters an immutable history linked to the Requirement: who attached what, who proposed, who approved, when, and with what comment. Nothing in the product edits or deletes a history record.
- 2026-01-18 Assistant suggested Partially Meets, suggestion only, no status change.
- 2026-02-04 Maria Silva attached evidence.
- 2026-03-14 Maria Silva proposed Partially Meets.
- 2026-03-21 Linked to recommendation ITRB-2026-07.
- 2026-04-02 Rafael Teixeira approved Partially Meets; the indicator moves here, and only here.
§04
Upon upload, there is an explicit choice, unchecked by default: map this document with the assistant, or not. The default is the conservative path, because a team that has not yet decided should not have AI output appearing inside its dossier.
The document is stored and the text is extracted. The team manually links it to the Requirements it supports. It is a document library with evidence pointers, with no inference of any kind.
The assistant reads the document against the 77 Requirements and writes a suggestion for each one it addresses, containing a candidate assessment, citable excerpts, and identified gaps.
A suggestion sits beside the Requirement. It is not the Requirement.
The four guardrails, stated plainly
A suggestion never becomes a status. A person must adopt it as a proposal before it can enter the approval queue, and even then it still requires an Approver.
The assistant never writes an assessment. It writes a candidate assessment within a suggestion; the field that counts is only written by a person.
The assistant never overwrites a Requirement someone has already worked on. Human work is not a draft the model has permission to improve.
Nothing is saved when the model does not return a valid structure. A malformed response is discarded, not salvaged as a partial suggestion.
AI accelerates when asked, and never decides.
Deleting a document removes the evidence pointing to it. Evidence is a statement about a document; when the document ceases to exist, the statement cannot outlive it and continue quietly supporting an assessment.
§05
Recommendations issued by the Independent Tailings Review Board (ITRB) and the Engineer of Record have their own module. They are not attachments to a Requirement; they are governance objects with their own lifecycle, and they are usually the reason a Requirement moves.
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Source | ITRB or Engineer of Record. |
| Issuer reference | The identifier used by the issuing body itself, so that both records can be reconciled. |
| Review cycle | Which review the recommendation came from. |
| Full text | The recommendation as written, not a summary of it. |
| Owner and deadline | Accountability, following the same model as the Requirements. |
| Action plan | Items and their completions. |
| Affected Requirements | The GISTM Requirements it touches, a bidirectional link: from the recommendation you reach the Requirements, and from a Requirement you see all recommendations that apply to it. |
Four statuses
Received, nothing in progress. Counts as an open gap.
Action plan underway, items in progress.
Plan completed and completion recorded.
Superseded by subsequent events, closed honestly instead of marked as done.
§06
The dashboard shows the two indicators, the timeline, the breakdown across the six topic areas, open gaps, and recent activity. Nothing in it is a vanity metric: every number on the page is a number an auditor could ask you to defend.
Gaps are detected automatically, across six categories
A gap is not just a failed Requirement. Five of the six categories address a dossier being incomplete or unassigned, which is what actually sinks an audit.
- Requirement that Does Not Meet.
- Requirement not started.
- Requirement evaluated without attached evidence.
- Overdue deadline.
- Requirement without an owner.
- Open recommendation from the ITRB or the Engineer of Record.
The report is in audit format and printable
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| 01 | Facility cover page. |
| 02 | The two indicators, Conformance and Coverage. |
| 03 | The density column. |
| 04 | Assessment distribution. |
| 05 | Conformance by topic area. |
| 06 | The status of each of the 77 Requirements, with the recorded assessment. |
Every page and every report carries the independence disclaimer. GISTM.ai supports the operator's own compliance management. It does not constitute, replace, or simulate an independent audit, an ITRB opinion, or an Engineer of Record determination.
§07
The entire product is ten screens. This is deliberate: a compliance team should be able to hold the entire application in their heads.
- 01 Sign-in
- 02 Access not yet granted
- 03 Dashboard
- 04 Registry of the 77
- 05 Documents
- 06 Approvals
- 07 ITRB and Engineer
- 08 Report
- 09 Administration
- 10 Platform
Command palette ⌘K
The palette navigates across Requirements, pages, and facilities. In a 77-item registry consulted daily for months, search is the primary navigation and the menu is secondary.
- Requirement 5.2 · Design and operation Pending approval
- Approvals · queue 6 pending
- Barragem Quebrada Negra Facility
§08
Ten tables and thirty-two server methods. The shape of the data is the shape of governance: the registry, the history, and the timeline are separate tables precisely because history can never be a derived view of the current state.
| # | Table | Stores |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | empresas | The tenants. |
| 02 | users | People and their access level. |
| 03 | facilities | Tailings facilities. |
| 04 | the 77 Requirements | Global reference data, shared across all tenants. |
| 05 | compliance records | The living record: assessment, state, owner, deadline, rationale. |
| 06 | immutable history | Append-only events per Requirement. |
| 07 | timeline points | Snapshots of indicators over time. |
| 08 | documents | The library, extracted text, and evidence pointers. |
| 09 | recommendations | ITRB and Engineer of Record records and their action plans. |
| 10 | invitations | Pending invitations and their codes. |
Session and invitations · the registry and Requirement detail · evaluation and evidence · the approval queue · promoting and discarding suggestions · the document library · the recommendations module · facility creation · company and user administration · demo reset.
Every facility-scoped method begins by confirming that the facility belongs to the caller's company.
A daily routine at 05:00 UTC resets the demo company to its initial state. Its scope is restricted to the tenant flagged as demo; no customer data is touched; and it aborts if that flag is missing, rather than falling back to a broader scope.
The same reset is available as a manual button for the Platform Admin.
§09
Andina Sur Mineração operating the Barragem Quebrada Negra, both fictitious, in Minas Gerais. High Consequence classification, iron ore, operating facility. The demo is deliberately mid-journey, because both an empty product and a completed product hide what the work actually feels like.
Pending
Proposals awaiting decision
Requirements in progress
Assistant suggestions awaiting a person
Documents
ITRB / EoR recommendations
189
History events
Timeline points
A second scenario shows exactly what a new client finds on day one: the 77 Requirements open, nothing evaluated, empty library. No seeded indicator, no sample assessments, the honest starting point.
§10
Testemunho is the geotechnical term for a core sample and, at the same time, the word for documentary evidence. Both meanings define the product: a vertical record extracted from the ground, and evidence provided under accountability.
Two chromas across the entire system
Plumb
#0C4F58
Everything interactive. Links, controls, ratified cells, the two indicators.
Oxide
#9A4230
Exclusively deficiency. Nothing decorative ever borrows it, so that when it appears on screen it means only one thing.
The assessment is encoded by glyph shape, not by color: filled square = Meets · half-filled square = Partially Meets · triangle = Does Not Meet · dash = Not Applicable · empty outline = Not Evaluated.
Workflow state is encoded by opacity, which is why proposed work can appear present-yet-provisional without inventing a sixth color.
The frame is the platform. The sheet is client data. Everything the operator wrote stays on the paper; everything the software contributes remains in the frame. You always know which is which.
Typography
Supreme · above 20px
Partially Meets, annual review not evidenced.
Fira Sans · 20px and below
ITRB-2026-07 · 2026-04-02
IBM Plex Mono · identifiers and dates
The Testemunho Column, again
A single artifact carries the identity of the entire system: 692 × 30 pixels, 77 cells, 6 groups. It is in the dashboard, the report, and the palette results. As work is ratified, the cells fill in, and the page darkens over the months, the core being extracted from the ground.
Independence notice · present on every page and every report in the product.
Open the demo facility in a new window, or ask us to walk you through the record, the approval queue, and the audit-format report for one of your tailings facilities.
Real-world projects where GISTM.ai shifted tailings governance from periodic audits to continuous, evidence-based assurance.
GISTM.ai, AI platform for tailings compliance
The main case study: from periodic audits to continuous assurance across the 77 GISTM Requirements.
AI-assisted GISTM audit and gap identification
Prioritized gaps, traceable evidence, and actionable recommendations generated with GISTM.ai.
Redesign of corporate geotechnical governance
Five phases, twelve deliverables, and a change roadmap for corporate geotechnics.
Reliable Assurance and Health Index Framework
Six components of a living assurance system, with a monthly executive cadence.
