National geological surveys are increasingly contributing to development strategies by generating geoscientific evidence that reduces uncertainty in public decision-making. In this context, metallogeny is particularly relevant because it links geodynamic evolution to ore-forming processes and the spatial organization of mineral potential, enabling coherent national-scale syntheses and a gradual transition toward prospectivity and prioritization approaches. This article reviews the evolution of metallogenic mapping and metallogenetic research in Peru, with emphasis on the institutional role of the Peruvian Geological Survey, INGEMMET. We propose to interpret this trajectory as a function of actionable geoscience, understood as the sustained effort to translate scientific interpretation into updatable, interoperable, and transferable products with the potential to support national planning, prioritization, and cooperation processes. The evolution is organized into four stages, defined by substantive changes in: (i) the evidence base (from expert synthesis to standardized databases and multi-technique characterization), (ii) integration frameworks (from provinces/areas to geotectonic units, metallogenic belts, and mineral systems), and (iii) decision-support orientation (from descriptive cartography to reproducible workflows and probabilistic prioritization). Stage I (1969–2000) comprises national syntheses and early mapping that structured the territory into provinces, subprovinces, and metallogenic areas, establishing an initial vocabulary and criteria. Stage II (2001–2010) is marked by multinational cooperation and systematic inventories (including the Andean Multinational Project, MAP), which provided standardized tables and symbology and enabled the transition to GIS-compatible products. During this period, the Metallogeny Program (2007) was formalized as a research group and a strategy based on geotectonic/tectonomagmatic units was adopted, emphasizing volcanic centers, calderas, and regional faults. A key outcome was the consolidation of a national framework of 23 metallogenic belts characterized by deposit type, metal association, and mineralization age. Stage III (2011–2022) groups specialized projects that deepened the evidence base at deposit and regional scales and expanded the thematic scope to strategic elements. Stage IV (2023–2026) reflects methodological maturation toward more structured workflows, explicit operationalization of variables and quantitative integration (for example, fuzzy logic), and a transition toward predictive–probabilistic approaches based on mineral systems and artificial intelligence/machine learning for prospectivity mapping. Finally, implications for public policy are discussed from an institutional perspective, including data governance and interoperability, transparent integration rules, and public dissemination through national geoportals (for example, GeoCatmin) as transfer mechanisms. We conclude with recommendations and a roadmap to strengthen actionable metallogeny within geological surveys.