Prototype — Fictional Demonstration DataData as of October 1, 2026

Decisions Required

What needs a decision, by whom, and by when?

Reporting cutoff: October 1, 2026 · Due horizon: October 15, 2026

Open and In review decisions are unresolved. Later and undated decisions remain visible.

This register supports review and preparation only. It records no approvals and does not imply authority to commit the company.

Unresolved published decisions: 5 — Unresolved published decisions: show these records; Open and In review · 5 projects
4 decisions due through October 15: 4 — 4 decisions due through October 15: show these records; 0 overdue · 0 due today · 4 upcoming
Due after the horizon: 1 — Due after the horizon: show these records; Later — still open and visible · Due date missing: 0
Resolved records: 1; Reviewable; outside unresolved counts

Filter decisions

Project

Decision owner

Status

Due window

Showing 5 of 6 decision records · 5 projects

Unresolved decisions first, earliest due date first; undated decisions follow dated ones.

The table scrolls sideways to show every column; the project column stays in place.

Project Nova

Choose the security and ESA negotiation path

Oct 3, 2026Upcoming

A $12M security requirement is due October 5; draft ESA terms do not establish a capacity commitment.

300 MW requested; zero agreement-supported MW recorded.

October 3 decision precedes October 5 security deadline; proposed extension is unagreed.

$12M security is separate from $62M company infrastructure forecast.

Security deadline arrives before the preferred service terms are settled

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Choose the security and ESA negotiation path?

Options — proposed choices for review (3)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Provide the $12M security after the required reviews	No executed capacity commitment follows automatically from posting security.	Satisfy the recorded October 5 security requirement, subject to a properly authorized decision.	$12M security/liquidity support; excluded from $62M infrastructure forecast addition.	Release and cancellation conditions need Legal/Finance confirmation.
Seek a 30-day security-deadline extension	No new capacity secured.	Request October 5→November 4 extension; it is not agreed and may be refused.	Avoids immediate posting only if the utility agrees; forecast remains $62M.	The current commercial window may not remain available.
Decline new security and reassess the site sequence	300 MW remains uncommitted.	No replacement delivery date is assumed.	No new $12M posting; $0.5M paid study deposit remains subject to recorded terms.	Potential loss of the indicated window requires Development/business-case review.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Jordan Ellis (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Nova fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Nova fictional commercial correspondence (September 24, 2026)

Project Atlas

Choose the route-recovery study path

Oct 8, 2026Upcoming

A route decision determines whether an alternative can be tested before the next utility design gate.

400 MW studied; zero stronger/committed MW recorded.

Current September 30, 2030 forecast is 273 days later than December 31, 2029 target.

$1.5M proposed investigation within $98M current forecast.

Route approval now controls full-capacity delivery

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Choose the route-recovery study path?

Options — proposed choices for review (3)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Authorize a scoped $1.5M alternative-route investigation	400 MW remains studied; no additional MW secured.	Test recovery against September 2030 forecast; nine-month recovery is not guaranteed.	$1.5M proposed scope fits the existing $98M forecast allowance; no automatic increase.	Utility must confirm route, permitting and constructability assumptions.
Plan Development sequencing around September 2030	400 MW full-service basis unchanged.	Accept the current forecast for planning while retaining the original target history.	$98M forecast remains; leasing/development consequences are not quantified.	Requires business-case review; does not waive any actual contractual position.
Hold new scope pending utility route evidence	No capacity change.	Seek dated route evidence before the next design gate; no new recovery date assumed.	No new investigation authorization; existing commitments remain.	May consume recovery time while preserving near-term discretion.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Avery Lin (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Atlas fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Atlas fictional commercial correspondence (September 30, 2026)

Project Summit

Select the facilities scope and commercial negotiation position

Oct 12, 2026Upcoming

The design package cannot be fixed until leadership selects the supported scope and negotiation boundaries.

400 MW requested; 200 MW agreement-supported.

Current initial September 2029/full June 2030 forecasts unchanged.

$100M company forecast; $35M above prior and $20M above illustrative budget.

Revised facilities estimate exceeds the current illustrative budget

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Select the facilities scope and commercial negotiation position?

Options — proposed choices for review (3)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Support the current scope and seek the required budget decision	200 MW first-phase coverage; later 200 MW remains studied.	Current September 2029/June 2030 phasing unchanged.	$100M forecast vs $80M budget creates $20M budget variance; this is not itself approval to spend.	Validate estimate and allocation before the fictional capital decision.
Request a utility-supported reduced or alternative facilities scope	No assumed capacity reduction or new capacity gain; utility must study the option.	No revised date is invented.	Alternative cost remains unknown; current $100M remains the forecast until revised.	Could alter technical performance and allocation; specialist review required.
Evaluate deferring the additional 200 MW phase	Initial 200 MW evidence retained; later phase remains a development option subject to obligations.	No revised full-buildout date assumed.	Revised forecast and cancellation implications are unknown.	Requires commercial and Development review before any scope change.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Casey Rowan (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Summit fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Summit fictional commercial correspondence (September 30, 2026)

Project Orion

Authorize next-stage facilities engineering

Oct 15, 2026Upcoming

The utility needs an engineering direction before reserving the next design/procurement window; engineering approval does not secure additional MW.

500 MW requested; 200 MW agreement-supported; additional 300 MW remains studied.

Initial September 30, 2029 unchanged; full June 30, 2031 versus June 30, 2030 target.

$3M proposed engineering authorization within $115M total company forecast; forecast is $35M above prior.

Transformer procurement window threatens the later 300 MW

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Authorize next-stage facilities engineering?

Options — proposed choices for review (3)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Advance the $3M facilities-engineering proposal with stated conditions	200 MW remains agreement-supported; later 300 MW remains studied.	Initial September 2029/full June 2031 forecasts remain conditional; seek written utility confirmation of the engineering gate.	$3M proposed authorization is within the $115M company forecast, not an additional $3M exposure.	Conditions: confirm scope, payment trigger and cancellation treatment with the appropriate owners.
Hold authorization pending an accelerated technical/commercial review	No additional MW secured.	Request utility answers before October 15; missing the window may change the forecast, but no quantified delay is assumed.	No new $3M authorization; existing obligations remain.	Engineering/procurement window may be lost; obtain written consequences.
Rework the development ramp around the initial 200 MW	200 MW initial; 300 MW additional remains dependent on the transmission upgrade.	Development evaluates September 2029 initial/June 2031 full-capacity alignment; this does not accelerate utility delivery.	Revised business-case impact is unknown; $115M remains the utility forecast pending revised scope.	Requires Development and Sales input; no customer commitment is inferred.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Morgan Vale (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Orion fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Orion fictional commercial correspondence (September 30, 2026)

Project Vector

Select which voltage-mitigation option to advance

Oct 22, 2026Later

The chosen option defines further study, cost allocation questions, and design dependencies.

250 MW studied; zero qualifying agreement-supported MW.

March 31, 2030 forecast is 90 days later than December 31, 2029 target.

$70M company forecast; no priced alternative is recorded.

Reactive-performance mitigation is not yet selected

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Select which voltage-mitigation option to advance?

Options — proposed choices for review (2)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Advance study of reactive-support option	250 MW remains studied, not committed.	March 2030 forecast retained until utility confirms a revised result.	Further study cost requires a scoped proposal; $70M remains the forecast.	The option is a candidate, not an engineering-approved mitigation.
Advance study of an alternative supply topology	No additional deliverable MW assumed.	Alternative routing and schedule remain unconfirmed.	Alternative scope/allocation unknown.	Utility and consultant must validate contingency and constructability results.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Samir Lake (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Vector fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Vector fictional commercial correspondence (September 24, 2026)

Filter decisions

Project

Decision owner

Status

Due window

Showing 5 of 6 decision records · 5 projects

Unresolved decisions first, earliest due date first; undated decisions follow dated ones.

The table scrolls sideways to show every column; the project column stays in place.

Project Nova

Choose the security and ESA negotiation path

Oct 3, 2026Upcoming

A $12M security requirement is due October 5; draft ESA terms do not establish a capacity commitment.

300 MW requested; zero agreement-supported MW recorded.

October 3 decision precedes October 5 security deadline; proposed extension is unagreed.

$12M security is separate from $62M company infrastructure forecast.

Security deadline arrives before the preferred service terms are settled

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Choose the security and ESA negotiation path?

Options — proposed choices for review (3)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Provide the $12M security after the required reviews	No executed capacity commitment follows automatically from posting security.	Satisfy the recorded October 5 security requirement, subject to a properly authorized decision.	$12M security/liquidity support; excluded from $62M infrastructure forecast addition.	Release and cancellation conditions need Legal/Finance confirmation.
Seek a 30-day security-deadline extension	No new capacity secured.	Request October 5→November 4 extension; it is not agreed and may be refused.	Avoids immediate posting only if the utility agrees; forecast remains $62M.	The current commercial window may not remain available.
Decline new security and reassess the site sequence	300 MW remains uncommitted.	No replacement delivery date is assumed.	No new $12M posting; $0.5M paid study deposit remains subject to recorded terms.	Potential loss of the indicated window requires Development/business-case review.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Jordan Ellis (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Nova fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Nova fictional commercial correspondence (September 24, 2026)

Project Atlas

Choose the route-recovery study path

Oct 8, 2026Upcoming

A route decision determines whether an alternative can be tested before the next utility design gate.

400 MW studied; zero stronger/committed MW recorded.

Current September 30, 2030 forecast is 273 days later than December 31, 2029 target.

$1.5M proposed investigation within $98M current forecast.

Route approval now controls full-capacity delivery

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Choose the route-recovery study path?

Options — proposed choices for review (3)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Authorize a scoped $1.5M alternative-route investigation	400 MW remains studied; no additional MW secured.	Test recovery against September 2030 forecast; nine-month recovery is not guaranteed.	$1.5M proposed scope fits the existing $98M forecast allowance; no automatic increase.	Utility must confirm route, permitting and constructability assumptions.
Plan Development sequencing around September 2030	400 MW full-service basis unchanged.	Accept the current forecast for planning while retaining the original target history.	$98M forecast remains; leasing/development consequences are not quantified.	Requires business-case review; does not waive any actual contractual position.
Hold new scope pending utility route evidence	No capacity change.	Seek dated route evidence before the next design gate; no new recovery date assumed.	No new investigation authorization; existing commitments remain.	May consume recovery time while preserving near-term discretion.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Avery Lin (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Atlas fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Atlas fictional commercial correspondence (September 30, 2026)

Project Summit

Select the facilities scope and commercial negotiation position

Oct 12, 2026Upcoming

The design package cannot be fixed until leadership selects the supported scope and negotiation boundaries.

400 MW requested; 200 MW agreement-supported.

Current initial September 2029/full June 2030 forecasts unchanged.

$100M company forecast; $35M above prior and $20M above illustrative budget.

Revised facilities estimate exceeds the current illustrative budget

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Select the facilities scope and commercial negotiation position?

Options — proposed choices for review (3)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Support the current scope and seek the required budget decision	200 MW first-phase coverage; later 200 MW remains studied.	Current September 2029/June 2030 phasing unchanged.	$100M forecast vs $80M budget creates $20M budget variance; this is not itself approval to spend.	Validate estimate and allocation before the fictional capital decision.
Request a utility-supported reduced or alternative facilities scope	No assumed capacity reduction or new capacity gain; utility must study the option.	No revised date is invented.	Alternative cost remains unknown; current $100M remains the forecast until revised.	Could alter technical performance and allocation; specialist review required.
Evaluate deferring the additional 200 MW phase	Initial 200 MW evidence retained; later phase remains a development option subject to obligations.	No revised full-buildout date assumed.	Revised forecast and cancellation implications are unknown.	Requires commercial and Development review before any scope change.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Casey Rowan (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Summit fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Summit fictional commercial correspondence (September 30, 2026)

Project Orion

Authorize next-stage facilities engineering

Oct 15, 2026Upcoming

The utility needs an engineering direction before reserving the next design/procurement window; engineering approval does not secure additional MW.

500 MW requested; 200 MW agreement-supported; additional 300 MW remains studied.

Initial September 30, 2029 unchanged; full June 30, 2031 versus June 30, 2030 target.

$3M proposed engineering authorization within $115M total company forecast; forecast is $35M above prior.

Transformer procurement window threatens the later 300 MW

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Authorize next-stage facilities engineering?

Options — proposed choices for review (3)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Advance the $3M facilities-engineering proposal with stated conditions	200 MW remains agreement-supported; later 300 MW remains studied.	Initial September 2029/full June 2031 forecasts remain conditional; seek written utility confirmation of the engineering gate.	$3M proposed authorization is within the $115M company forecast, not an additional $3M exposure.	Conditions: confirm scope, payment trigger and cancellation treatment with the appropriate owners.
Hold authorization pending an accelerated technical/commercial review	No additional MW secured.	Request utility answers before October 15; missing the window may change the forecast, but no quantified delay is assumed.	No new $3M authorization; existing obligations remain.	Engineering/procurement window may be lost; obtain written consequences.
Rework the development ramp around the initial 200 MW	200 MW initial; 300 MW additional remains dependent on the transmission upgrade.	Development evaluates September 2029 initial/June 2031 full-capacity alignment; this does not accelerate utility delivery.	Revised business-case impact is unknown; $115M remains the utility forecast pending revised scope.	Requires Development and Sales input; no customer commitment is inferred.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Morgan Vale (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Orion fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Orion fictional commercial correspondence (September 30, 2026)

Project Vector

Select which voltage-mitigation option to advance

Oct 22, 2026Later

The chosen option defines further study, cost allocation questions, and design dependencies.

250 MW studied; zero qualifying agreement-supported MW.

March 31, 2030 forecast is 90 days later than December 31, 2029 target.

$70M company forecast; no priced alternative is recorded.

Reactive-performance mitigation is not yet selected

Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)

Open

Review options

Question: Select which voltage-mitigation option to advance?

Options — proposed choices for review (2)

Option	MW impact	Schedule impact	Cost impact	Risk impact
Advance study of reactive-support option	250 MW remains studied, not committed.	March 2030 forecast retained until utility confirms a revised result.	Further study cost requires a scoped proposal; $70M remains the forecast.	The option is a candidate, not an engineering-approved mitigation.
Advance study of an alternative supply topology	No additional deliverable MW assumed.	Alternative routing and schedule remain unconfirmed.	Alternative scope/allocation unknown.	Utility and consultant must validate contingency and constructability results.

Options are choices for review. No approval or recommendation is recorded unless shown above.

Recommendation: Recommendation not recorded
Recorded outcome: No decision recorded
Decision owner: Demo capital decision owner (fictional role; authority not asserted)
Prepared by: Samir Lake (fictional)
Dependencies: Upgrade scope: Vector fictional delivery scope
Sources: Correspondence: Vector fictional commercial correspondence (September 24, 2026)

How to read these labels

Decision status: Draft; Open; In review; Decided; Closed; Cancelled; Only Open and In review are unresolved published decisions.
Deadline: Overdue; Due today; Upcoming; Later; Due date missing; Evaluated at the fixed reporting cutoff, not today's clock.