GOWINGS BROS LIMITED Prepared for John Gowing · Appendix A4 · Commercial in confidence

Appendix A4 · Method for §3 of the main paper · May 2026

How the numbers were tested

The corner tables in Section 3 are the decision-relevant output of the testing. This note records the method: the envelope tested, and what the model recomputed against the source pack. Nothing here changes the decision.

1

The envelope tested

Four inputs drive Vehicle A’s economics: capex per megawatt, the service-tier premium, the anchor pre-commitment, and the ramp. Vehicle B adds the operator pair: colocation price and stabilised utilisation. The May 2026 calculator exposed the first four as sliders; the underwriting model retired the sliders and replaced them with explicit recomputed grids in which every cell shows its full formula and can be stepped through cell by cell.

The envelope tested, input by input
InputCentralEnvelope testedWhere the corners sit
Capex per MWAUD 45 mAUD 35 to 60 mModel Sensitivity grid; §3 corner 1 at 60
Service-tier premium+18%+5 to +35%Model Sensitivity grid; §3 corner 2 at +5
Anchor pre-commitment60%0 to 100%§3 corner 4 at 90%, with +25% premium
Ramp to full utilisation4 yrs2 to 6 yrs§3 corner 3 at 6
Colo price · Vehicle BA$800/kW/moA$500 to 1,000Model operator grid, five price rows
Stabilised utilisation · Vehicle B78%60 to 90%Model operator grid, five utilisation columns

The corner outcomes themselves sit in the main paper’s Section 3 tables and are deliberately not repeated here; one set of published figures, one place to correct them.

Main paper · Corner outcomes: Vehicle A · Vehicle B

2

What the model recomputed

The retired calculator displayed two headline outputs at the central case, both carried faithfully from the source pack, and neither survived the model rebuild unchanged.

The first was an unlevered yield of 8.7 per cent. The pack’s own figures give 9.2: NOI of AUD 116 m on AUD 1,260 m of deployed capital. Reaching 8.7 requires assuming roughly 94.5 per cent revenue realisation, a spot-pricing discount the pack describes in its method note but never reconciles to its headline. The model carries 9.2 and flags the difference rather than correcting it silently.

The second was a levered IRR of 12.7 per cent. On the pack’s own stated method the figure is (NOI less interest) over equity: a stabilised cash-on-cash, not a time-weighted IRR. The calculator’s own methodology note conceded the point, in its words: “levered IRR proxies steady-state cash-on-cash”. The model promotes that concession to the label. It reports the measure as cash-on-cash, 12.5 per cent on exact inputs, and computes the true 30-year levered IRR separately, about 8.8 per cent, on the full cash-flow row including ramp, refresh and exit.

Two further recomputations complete the set: the source specifies no exit cap rate (the model uses a flagged 6.5 per cent analyst assumption, affecting the 30-year IRR only), and the source’s +5 per cent corner cites a ~6.5 per cent yield where its own revenue figure implies 8.2 (the case still fails there, on premium economics). All four appear with arithmetic in the main paper’s §6.E and on the model’s Sources & Notes tab.

The calculator’s other live readouts, year-three NOI and contracted revenue mix at signing, were working states of its ramp arithmetic rather than underwriting anchors; they retire with it.

Main paper · The four variances, tabled: §6.E

3

The customer mix and the thesis map

The calculator’s final panel mapped whatever customer mix was selected onto the four global theses. The map itself is stable and worth keeping:

What in a customer mix activates which thesis
ThesisWhat activates it
Hyperscaler captiveEnterprise revenue persistence; Copilot-class seat economics
Neocloud merchantLab counterparty quality; GPU residual value; merchant pricing
REIT / infrastructure fundPower and grid scarcity; tenant credit; long-tenor leases
Sovereign / strategicA government anchor; concessional capital; political continuity

At the central mix, the seven boutique segments with a 60 per cent anchor pre-commitment, the map lands on REIT / infrastructure with a sovereign adjacency on the government-mid segment: the same placement the screen in Appendix A3 reaches by its own route.

Return to the main paper · §3 What must be true Appendix contents · main paper