The TCA Methodology is industry-agnostic, evidence-anchored, and designed to produce consistent, comparable, audit-ready outputs across projects of varying scale, sector, and lifecycle stage.
Each layer has an explicit purpose, a defined output, and a handoff contract to the next.
Ingest, structure, normalize. Heterogeneous project inputs — technical reports, financial models, regulatory filings, market research — are translated into a canonical analytical record.
Output: project entity, assumption register, indexed source pack.
Decompose the locked R&I record into element-level risk scoring across five dimensions. Apply stage-sensitive weighting based on project lifecycle.
Output: dimension scores, composite score, A→S rating.
Translate risk intelligence into capital-allocation options: Decline, Enhanced Diligence, Term Outline, or Formal Diligence. Independent of scoring function.
Output: decision-ready capital allocation recommendations.
Synthesize all layers into the Viability Opinion Report — a structured document subject to Compliance sign-off before distribution.
Output: VOR document, distribution record, retention index.
Every project is decomposed along the same five axes. Weights vary by stage; dimensions do not.
Operator capacity, team depth, delivery track record, execution plan integrity.
Subsurface or physical-asset characterization, technical feasibility, engineering assumption quality.
Demand, pricing exposure, offtake structure, competitive positioning, commercial contract quality.
Capital structure, funding certainty, sensitivity to cost overruns, return profile integrity.
Permitting path, compliance posture, jurisdictional exposure, operating environment.
Composite risk scores translate to a seven-grade scale designed for rapid interpretation by allocators.
Ratings are analytical judgments. They are not buy, sell, or hold recommendations. TCA is an independent risk advisor; TCA is not a registered investment adviser at this time. See our Regulatory Posture page for current status.
Stage weighting adjusts the relative contribution of each dimension to the composite score based on where a project sits in its lifecycle.
| Stage | Label | Dominant weighting focus |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Concept | Geological / Technical, Market thesis |
| Stage 2 | Pre-feasibility | Execution capacity, Technical de-risk |
| Stage 3 | Appraisal | Technical + Regulatory, early Financial |
| Stage 4 | Feasibility / FID | Financial, Execution plan, Commercial |
| Stage 5 | Construction | Execution discipline, Financial buffer |
| Stage 6 | Commissioning | Execution close-out, Commercial ramp |
| Stage 7 | Operating | Operating performance, Market, Regulatory |