Does the model preserve real campus requirements?
Four documented California campuses test the meaning of IT power, facility power, full-build service, connection voltage and campus architecture. Each uses its documented capacity instead of a fixed 100 MW scenario.
This is a semantic and architecture diagnostic, not predictive validation. Historical designs do not establish available capacity for a new campus. No weights are fitted to these projects. Current service reservations, tariff eligibility, water allocations and carrier routes remain unverified.
Loading the versioned campus diagnostic…
Documented scale and model output
| Historical campus | Documented power | Historical service | Modeled firm demand | Architecture comparison | Scenario status |
|---|
Area and floor-area ratios compare the illustrative rack, building and yard assumptions with the historical project. A mismatch calls for a campus-specific site plan; it does not show that the documented development was infeasible. Generator ratings and transformer MVA are kept separate from the MW demand input.
What these checks establish
Average operating utilization must not reduce full-build electrical service. An IT-MW input includes its reference PUE overhead once in the facility bill. A named historical utility supports an explicitly conditional rate scenario; it does not resolve a new parcel’s service rights. Higher voltage is a capacity-dependent enquiry preference, rather than a promise of spare MW.
What still needs validation
Four selected campuses cannot establish statewide ranking accuracy. Generic campus coefficients are not calibrated layouts. A stronger predictive test needs dated pre-development evidence, project-specific costs and service commitments, and independently sampled alternatives. The tool discloses these limits instead of tuning scores to reproduce selected existing sites.