# Company Context

**Last updated: 08 Jul 2026. Refresh quarterly.** If this file is more than one quarter old at review time, flag it and ask Nick for current numbers before completing Section 7.

This file exists because a review without company context cannot size exposure or state a BATNA. Fill and maintain the bracketed values; the review skill reads this at the start of every review.

## Sign-off thresholds (set once, hold constant)

| Trigger | Sign-off required |
|---|---|
| Pre-FID or pre-signature exposure above USD [X] million | Full founder review |
| Term above [Y] years | Full founder review |
| Any red flag accepted rather than renegotiated | Founder acceptance in writing |
| All other offers | Reviewer + one founder |

Suggested starting values pending Nick's confirmation: X = 5, Y = 10. Rationale: exposure above USD 5M is material against the current raise, and terms beyond 10 years are debt-equivalent at a scale lenders will price.

## Balance sheet and raise context

- Active raises: USD 40M company-level round into MicroLink USA; project debt raise for the Mansfield, Ohio flagship site. Any offer creating balance sheet obligations lands in the middle of both processes; lenders and investors will see capacity commitments and backstops as imputed debt.
- Sizing reference for exposure scores: an exposure request should be compared against the company round. A backstop request several times the size of the round is not an exposure question, it is a control question.
- Debt-equivalence rule of thumb: long-dated unconditional capacity or take-or-pay obligations are treated by rating agencies as imputed debt at a risk-factored share of NPV. Get financing counsel review before signing anything above the [X] threshold.

## Standing alternatives (BATNA inputs, keep current)

For power supply offers at MicroLink sites, the standing alternatives to check against:
- Grid interconnection status and realistic timeline at the specific site (utility queue position, any signed agreements, tariff exposure).
- Other power counterparties in active or dormant discussion for the same site.
- Bridge options: mobile/temporary generation, phased smaller deployment, delaying the load.
- The null option: what the delay actually costs in tenant commitments and raise narrative, stated honestly in both directions (cost of waiting vs cost of locking a bad term for 20 years).

For equipment offers: current OEM lead times for the relevant class, alternative OEMs, and the secondary/brokered market.

## Active site register (for offer relevance)

Mansfield Ohio (flagship, 300 MW class), Stickney/MWRD Chicago, Newtown Creek NYC, New York pilot, District Heat Pod program sites. Offers touching one of these get reviewed against that site's specific interconnection, permitting, and tenant status; ask Nick for the current site status if it is not in the conversation or memory.

## Review register

Keep one line per completed review for cross-offer consistency: date, counterparty, offer class, score, gate outcome, key terms. Consistency across reviews is the point of the template; the register is how drift gets caught.

| Date | Counterparty | Class | Score | Flags | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |
