Explor Resources Inc. (fka EXSFF)

[gharma]

Are both approaches acceptable in the regulator's eyes and do the regulators even have such a stipulation

Therein lies the crux of the matter regarding the change of model. It was my understanding that the firm(s) involved in the new update was selected specifically because of its profile and status in its industry. That the change was made for marketability (of TPW) and acceptance of the estimate is what had been mentioned. I have not dug into the details of NI 43-101 requirements, and I have no doubt that there is some wiggle room for geological expertise to craft the most appropriate application of broader guidelines that must be followed. I do know that I have seen mistakes in resource estimates resulting in both sanctions by Canadian regulatory agencies (look at Barkerville Gold Mines that has been under a cease trade order for how long while a re-do of its NI 43-101 is awaited) and has also resulted in lawsuits against the parties that did the inappropriate NI 43-101 estimates.
Now, you are right that "malfeasance in practice" may be to strong, and would be had I been asserting that such was definitively the case here, but if you had quoted with the full statement you would have shown I was also indicating that

In my mind the question is whether there was malfeasance in practice

The point is we have a resource estimate from a supposedly reputable firm which has seen the necessity of making a major change in the modeling method used, and which has apparently stuck by its guns and refused to adjust that and go back to the prior. I would have to assume such action was for cause. I would tend to believe that cause is alignment to the rules for NI 43-101 estimating rather than the influence of some interested major as your post has seemed to toss out there as a possibility. Sure, it like anything in business is a possibility. But becoming reputable as an independent estimate provider does probably have a lot to do with accuracy and independence while doing quality work.
If the rules for estimating are clear that the model needed to be adjusted then the prior estimates are wrong, and such would be properly called "malfeasance in practice". Remember malfeasance covers not just intentionally stretching the rules, it is also just plain lack of diligence with mistakes resulting in failure to do the right thing.

BTW, at today's gold price range the resource estimate should be viewed using the 2.2 cutoff which resulted from assuming a 1350/oz average price.