This is the full five-section deliverable, reproduced with the issuer redacted. The company name, ticker and any figure that would identify it have been replaced with REDACTED. Everything else — the structure, the depth, the specificity of the findings — is what lands in your inbox.
Illustrative composite of a micro-cap exploration issuer. Figures are representative of the band, not any one company. Nothing here is investment advice or a recommendation. See Financial Warnings.
Headline. The company is not under-covered because the story is weak — it is under-covered because the story is unfindable. Two of the last three material results never left the filing system: no wire, no owned-channel post, no investor-facing summary. Retail search intent for the project name is real and rising; almost none of it lands on a page the company controls. The three fixes in section 5 are executable inside four weeks and do not require a budget increase.
Where investors in your sector actually look, and whether you are there.
| Channel | Present? | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| SEDAR+ filings | Complete | All required filings current; NI 43-101 technical report filed ██ months ago |
| Newswire (last 180d) | Thin | 3 releases. Two material assay results were disclosed by filing only — never wired |
| Owned IR page | Stale | Exists; last updated ██ days ago. Corporate deck is two quarters out of date and still shows a superseded resource figure |
| Google — company name | Mixed | Ranks #1, but positions 2–5 are aggregators and a stale stock-forum thread you don't control |
| Google — project name | Absent | The flagship property name returns a government geological survey and two competitor pages before any company asset |
| Retail forums / X / Reddit | Absent | ~██ mentions in 180d, none from the company. The two most-read posts contain a factual error about the earn-in terms that has never been corrected |
| YouTube / video | Absent | No CEO interview, no site walk-through, no results explainer. Peers in the same band average 4–7 pieces/year |
| Newsletters / analyst desks | Absent | No unpaid mentions found. No fact pack in circulation for desks that cover the district |
| Institutional screens | Partial | Listed on the major data terminals, but the business description field is the 2019 shell-company text |
Read: the gap is not exposure at the top of the funnel — the name ranks. The gap is that every second search result is a surface someone else owns, including one carrying a material factual error.
Trading pattern, spread and volume context against five true peers — same exchange, same commodity, comparable stage and market cap.
| Metric (trailing 90d) | REDACTED | Peer median (n=5) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median daily volume | ██k shares | ███k shares | −61% vs peers |
| Median bid-ask spread | 4.8% | 2.1% | 2.3× wider |
| Days with zero volume | 14 | 3 | Discontinuous tape |
| Volume concentration | 61% of 90-day volume fell in the 6 sessions following the one wired release | News-dependent | |
| Post-news decay | Volume returned to baseline in 4 sessions (peer median: 11) | No follow-through | |
| Retail / institutional mix | No institutional filings in the last 4 quarters; register is retail-dominant | Single-cohort | |
Read: this is a classic visibility-constrained tape, not a story-constrained one. Volume exists — it just only appears when news is pushed, and it decays in a third of the time peers hold it. A 4.8% spread is itself a deterrent: it is the cost a new buyer pays for the fact that no one is watching. FoundryIR does not and cannot promise to change your share price or volume; what this section measures is the visibility input, which is the part anyone can actually work on.
How your filings and releases read to a first-time investor — and anything that quietly undermines credibility.
| Check | Status | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Qualified-person statement on technical disclosure | Pass | Present and correctly attributed on all three releases |
| Forward-looking-information cautionary language | Pass | Present; standard form |
| Assay QA/QC disclosure | Partial | Two releases describe results without the QA/QC and sampling paragraph a first-time institutional reader will look for |
| Headline vs. body consistency | Fail | One headline uses a superlative the body does not support with a stated interval width — the single most common source of exchange comment letters we see |
| Superseded figures still public | Fail | Corporate deck on the site still shows the pre-██ resource estimate with no "as at" date |
| Share structure disclosed plainly | Partial | Fully-diluted count is derivable from filings but appears nowhere investor-facing; warrant overhang not summarised |
| Paid-content identification (SEC §17(b) / TSXV 3.4) | Gap | Two third-party articles from a prior promotional vendor carry no compensation disclosure. Neither was filed as a Form 3C. This is the issuer's exposure, not the vendor's |
| Plain-language summary for non-technical readers | Absent | No release opens with what the result means. Every one opens with the drill-hole table |
Read: nothing here is a compliance emergency, and this is not legal advice — verify the §17(b) / Policy 3.4 items with your counsel. But two of them (the unsupported headline superlative and the undisclosed paid articles) are the kind of thing that costs credibility exactly once, with exactly the reader you most want. See the Small-Cap IR Compliance Checklist.
Five similarly-staged issuers with visibly better market reception, and what they are doing that you are not.
| Peer | Cap band | Releases /180d | Video /yr | Owned newsletter | What they do differently |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer A ████ | C$26M | 9 | 6 | Yes (~█k subs) | Every assay ships same-day with a 200-word plain-language "what this means" |
| Peer B ████ | C$19M | 7 | 4 | Yes | Owns page 1 for the project name — a dedicated property microsite, not a PDF |
| Peer C ████ | C$31M | 11 | 9 | Yes | Quarterly CEO video; corrects forum misinformation in-thread, on the record |
| Peer D ████ | C$17M | 6 | 2 | No | Ships a maintained fact pack to district-covering desks each quarter |
| Peer E ████ | C$22M | 8 | 5 | Yes | Deck versioned and dated on every download; no stale figure survives a quarter |
| REDACTED (you) | C$18–24M | 3 | 0 | No | — |
Read: the cap bands overlap; the cadence does not. Four of five peers publish a plain-language layer on top of the technical disclosure, and all five control the first page of search for their flagship property. Neither is a budget item — both are a process item.
Prioritised by impact per week of effort. Yours to execute — with us or without us.
Re-date and re-publish the corporate deck with the current resource figure and an explicit "as at" line; and get compensation disclosure attached to (or the pages taken down for) the two legacy promotional articles, with counsel's read on whether a Form 3C filing is owed. Effort: under a week. Cost: near zero. Do this first — every other fix drives traffic toward these pages.
Two of your last three material results were filed and never wired. Change the default: filing and wire go out together, and the release opens with two plain sentences on significance before the drill table. Peers hold post-news volume ~11 sessions against your 4 — the difference is that a reader who is not a geologist can tell what happened. Effort: process change plus ~2 hours per release.
Search intent for the property exists and currently lands on a government survey and two competitors. A single indexed, maintained property page — geology, history, current programme, results archive, updated each time you drill — converts that intent onto a surface you control, and gives you the place to correct the earn-in error circulating on the forums. Effort: one page, then 20 minutes per update.
Not in this list, deliberately: anything that requires paying for coverage, anything that promises a share-price or volume outcome, and anything you cannot start on Monday. FoundryIR guarantees the work within its control and no outcomes whatsoever.
Built by hand against your filings, your peers and your news flow. Free, whether or not we ever work together — the audit IR consultancies typically bill $8,000–$15,000 for.