No figure on this page is modeled. Every row is a live assertion in the Market Intelligence Register, carrying its own number, arrival channel, confidence tier, date and source. Because nothing here is illustrative, there is no illustrative banner to discharge — instead every row is marked individually, which is the stricter requirement.
Chain of record · one parcel
One campus, read against the instruments rather than the announcements. — findings rest on primary instruments — the recorded plat, the county assessor's roll, the state entity registry. — rest on nothing but the sponsor's own press, and are marked as such no matter how precise they read. — disagreements are open, and every endpoint is shown standing — none averaged, none quietly picked. — questions have no answer yet, and each names the document that would close it.
Before anything else
The postal city is Tolleson; the jurisdiction that approves everything is Avondale. The county files it under a subdivision name, the city files it under a different project name, and the sponsor calls it something a county clerk has never heard of. Anyone searching Tolleson portals for "PHX01" finds nothing and concludes nothing is there. That is not a finding — it is a retrieval failure that looks exactly like one.
The record
Tier is not a judgment about the sponsor. It is a statement about what kind of document a claim arrived on. Press and marketing enter at UNVERIFIED and stay there until a different instrument is attached — not because the figure is doubted, but because a press release is not an instrument. Promotion requires a document, never re-assertion.
Six published capacity figures for this campus
Instrument-backed megawatts: 0
Every figure above arrived through press or sponsor marketing, so every one is capped at UNVERIFIED. Not one is backed by a utility instrument, a permit or a recorded document. Two are superseded and shown dimmed — the append-only chain retires a figure rather than deleting it. Zero is the finding, not a blank: under §2.4 a leg state never licenses a megawatt, and instrument-backed capacity is what counts toward coverage.
Conflicts
Where two sources disagree, both endpoints stand and the range is the finding. Nothing here is averaged and nothing is silently picked. The reading beneath each range is reasoning, not evidence — it annotates the conflict and never establishes anything. Each closes with the specific instrument that would settle it.
Known unknowns
Where a registry has been searched and returned nothing, that would be stated with the registry and the date, and it would be a finding. Where nothing has been searched, that is stated as a gap — not as an absence. Every item below is the second kind. None of them is a claim that the document does not exist; each is a claim that we have not yet pulled it, plus the specific thing to pull.
The distinction is not pedantry. Collapsing it turns "we have not looked" into "there is nothing there," which is the one misreading a reader cannot detect from the outside — and on a sponsor's own asset it would read as an accusation rather than a coverage note. One example of getting this wrong is on this page already, in CX-0006, logged against ourselves.
Reply
This is a read of the public record on one parcel, assembled by a third party. If a row is wrong, the document that proves it wrong is worth more to this register than the row is. The question below is the whole reason the page exists — it takes a sentence to answer and every answer is either a correction or a pointer to an instrument we have not pulled.