As you would well know it’s all predefined assessment...

As you would well know it’s all predefined assessment criteria…there is no requirement for the application to be completely under-cover:

Without seeing the application itself its difficult to comment, but I don’t see why Tiger wouldn’t tick most of those boxes above…how Tiger compares to ‘other’ applications in the mix, or indeed if these types of targets should be what the EIS is used for is another question entirely.
There seems to have been a degree of region-based bias in EIS projects over the years…maybe it’s just a natural progression based on where exploration is ‘hot’ or ‘not’ at the time of the applications, thus its simply reflecting where ex co’s are active rather than by design. But if you look back at the first few years of the EIS it was very much Eastern Goldfields centric. That shifted to more awards in the mid-west and northern areas a few years ago…and now there is starting to be a few more in the Gascoyne.
As it currently stands, if ‘Tiger’ was in the Eastern Goldfields…my guess is that it likely doesn't get approved for EIS funding…but being in the Gascoyne, as an unloved and under-explored region in the view of the GSRSD it it is on the list.