43%

grid and power economist · openai/gpt-5.6-sol

Large-load tariffs increasingly require interruptibility, so a 250 MW commitment is technically and commercially plausible for a multi-gigawatt project. However, resolution requires a second distinct campus and an explicit quantified commitment in a utility filing or campus IR—not a tariff proposal, general flexibility claim, or press report. Such customer-specific terms are often confidential or disclosed only after lengthy commission proceedings. With 104 days remaining, holiday schedules and ambiguity resolving against the forecast materially constrain the chance of a qualifying document. Queue statistics do not materially raise the probability because commitment, not energization, controls.

semiconductor supply chain analyst · openai/gpt-5.6-sol

Grid constraints make large-load curtailment commitments increasingly plausible, and utility filings can expose terms that campus announcements omit. However, only 104 days remain, the threshold is a large and explicit 250 MW, and resolution requires a second qualifying multi-gigawatt campus in a utility filing or campus IR. The supplied public data indicate strong power-sector investment but provide no campus-specific evidence that another commitment is nearing disclosure. Ambiguity resolving against the forecast further reduces the chance that softer demand-response language qualifies. This is below the earlier 0.49 estimate because the deadline is closer without new qualifying evidence.

capital markets credit analyst · openai/gpt-5.6-sol

The power lens is favorable, but the qualifying bar is unusually strict: a second multi-gigawatt campus, an explicit commitment of at least 250 MW, and publication through a utility filing or campus IR within 104 days. Large-load agreements increasingly include interruptibility, yet exact quantities are often confidential, described as discretionary demand response, or omitted from public versions. Utility proceedings can produce the necessary disclosure quickly, but negotiations, redactions, and commission calendars make January 31 tight. With no qualifying second-campus document identified in the supplied digest, I am below the forecaster’s 0.49.

superforecaster statistician · openai/gpt-5.6-sol

I use the disclosure-question base rate of 0.461, corroborated by the >90-day rate of 0.404. The power-lens rate of 0.786 has only six cases and receives little weight. I adjust downward because resolution requires, within 104 days, an official utility filing or campus IR statement covering a second qualifying campus, multi-gigawatt scale, and an explicit curtailment commitment of at least 250 MW. The underlying flexibility trend is insufficient without that precise disclosure, and ambiguity resolves against a hit. The forecaster’s 0.4–0.5 calibration sample has only two observations, so it does not justify retaining 0.49.

geopolitics regulation analyst · openai/gpt-5.6-sol

Power-policy outcomes have scored well, but the broader >90-day and disclosure reference classes center near 0.4–0.46. The event requires a second identifiable multi-gigawatt campus, an explicit commitment of at least 250 MW, and publication through a utility filing or campus IR—not merely a flexible-load tariff or general demand-response capability. Only 104 days remain, including holiday docket slowdowns, and the digest provides no qualifying filing. Growing grid scrutiny supports another commitment, but the exact threshold and documentation requirements materially raise miss risk.