G42
One organisation’s compute: who controls it, and what its filings disclose.
No control relation for G42 in the public record as gathered
Every claim below carries the document it came from, who disclosed it, and the date that disclosure speaks to. Where the record holds nothing, the page states whether the public record was searched and what was searched — an unsearched layer and an empty one are different facts.
Control
Control here means holding title to a facility, operating one, or holding capacity by contract. This record holds none of the three for this organisation; what was searched is stated below.
US-visible counterparty disclosures searched by EDGAR full-text on 2026-08-19. This organization is named in filings, but not as a party to a facility instrument: Nvidia’s quarterly results release of 2025-05-28 lists it among the “strategic partners” of an Abu Dhabi infrastructure cluster, which announces a partnership rather than stating title, operation or a contract, and Cerebras Systems’ registration statements name it as a customer, which is hardware supply rather than facility control. The one facility-control instrument the search did return runs to a subsidiary — TeraWulf Inc. (Nasdaq: WULF) reports long-term data-centre lease agreements at its Lake Mariner campus in Barker, New York with Core42, which those filings describe as “a G42 company”. This platform records Core42 as a separate organization: an audit of that campus identified Core42 rather than the parent as its tenant, and a superseded-edge cleanup on 2026-07-10 removed the parent-level duplicate, so the lease is recorded against Core42 and does not appear in this ledger.
Across the 17 organisations carrying control relations in this substrate, 8 hold contractual capacity without a single titled facility on record. That pattern is what the three-way split exists to make visible: an attribution model keyed on ownership records the 8 as holding nothing.
Constraint
What regime the organisation sits under, and whether any export-control designation in the Federal-Register-anchored list held here reaches it. A quiet result is reported as a check with its date rather than left as silence.
The organization record places this company’s headquarters in the United Arab Emirates, on the strength of the company’s own published statements cited there.
U.S.-Allied — Country Group A:5 since July 10, 2026 (91 FR 43034): license-free AI-chip exports to the UAE Government and supplement-no.-8 approved entities (G42/Core42 plus UAE subsidiaries of eight named US AI companies), with BIS Export Control Officer monitoring in-country. Classification derived from the underlying rules, as of Jul 17, 2026.
- Moved from Country Groups D:3/D:4 to A:5 effective July 10, 2026 — BIS final rule "Enhanced Favorable Treatment for the United Arab Emirates Under the Export Administration Regulations", 91 FR 43034 (doc 2026-14132, published July 14, 2026).
- License-free advanced computing items (AI chips and servers) where the ultimate consignee and all end users are approved entities in supplement no. 8 to part 740: UAE Government agencies (incl. Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces), G42 (Group 42 Holding Ltd), Core42, and UAE subsidiaries of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and X.AI.
- G42/Core42 authorization auto-expires April 6, 2027 absent subsequent BIS notice. BIS maintains an Export Control Officer presence in the UAE for end-use monitoring.
- Implements the May 2025 US-UAE AI Cooperation framework; BIS ties the treatment to UAE matching-investment commitments in US AI digital infrastructure buildout.
No export-control designation is linked to this organization. The cross-reference that would carry such a link resolves 50 organizations to entries on the Federal-Register-anchored lists; this organization is not among them.
The denominator is printed because a zero on its own cannot be told from a check that never ran. The lists themselves last moved on Nov 10, 2025, so a quiet result here reflects the record rather than a stalled feed.
Disclosure posture
What the organisation itself has put on the record with the registries that ask, and which registries reach it at all. Each regime asks a different question of a different population, so each finding carries what that regime counts; nothing here is divided by anything else.
Global LEI index searched by legal name and fuzzy completion (“G42”, “G42 Holding”, “Group 42”) on 2026-08-19: the registry returns three active United Arab Emirates records whose legal names begin with “G42”, none of which has been adjudicated to this organization in the platform’s identity layer, and none of which reports a parent, child or ultimate-parent relationship in the registry. No identifier is cited here. Name agreement alone is not an identity finding.
Registration of the entity itself in the global LEI system.
as of Aug 19, 2026 · registry record ↗
Declarations in this regime are filed against a legal entity identifier. The registry holds candidate records under this organization’s name that no adjudication has attached to it, so this regime cannot be read for this subject until that identity question closes — an open question on this platform’s side, not a finding about the organization.
What the registrant itself declared to the LEI registry about its consolidating parent, per parent category.
as of Aug 19, 2026 · registry record ↗
Declarations in this regime are filed against a legal entity identifier. The registry holds candidate records under this organization’s name that no adjudication has attached to it, so this regime cannot be read for this subject until that identity question closes — an open question on this platform’s side, not a finding about the organization.
Entities holding identifiers of their own that report being consolidated into this organization’s audited accounts.
as of Aug 19, 2026 · registry record ↗
No SEC registrant record is attributed to this organization: it does not file its own periodic reports, so the SEC disclosure regime reaches it only through counterparties that do.
Whether the entity itself files with the SEC as a registrant.
Capacity
Facilities this organisation is linked to in the substrate. Every capacity figure is cited per record to the catalog that published it — frontier sites come from Epoch AI’s data-center catalog — and where a catalog records who owns the AI hardware at a site, that is rendered as what it is, hardware ownership per that source, and not as facility ownership or operation.
| Status | Facilities | Capacity where recorded |
|---|---|---|
| operational | 4 | 3 MW across the 2 of 4 with a figure, all measured |
| under construction | 1 | no capacity figures recorded |
| announced | 11 | 160 MW across the 3 of 11 with a figure, all estimates |
The 16 facilities the sums above are drawn from
| Facility | Status | Capacity |
|---|---|---|
| G42 Microsoft 100Mw UAE Cluster | announced | 100 MW (est.) |
| G42 Microsoft 30Mw UAE Cluster A | announced | 30 MW (est.) |
| G42 Microsoft 30Mw UAE Cluster B | announced | 30 MW (est.) |
| Condor Galaxy India | announced | not recorded |
| Condor Galaxy 3 (CG-3) | announced | not recorded |
| Condor Galaxy 4 (CG-4) | announced | not recorded |
| Condor Galaxy 5 (CG-5) | announced | not recorded |
| Condor Galaxy 6 (CG-6) | announced | not recorded |
| Condor Galaxy 7 (CG-7) | announced | not recorded |
| Condor Galaxy 8 (CG-8) | announced | not recorded |
| Condor Galaxy 9 (CG-9) | announced | not recorded |
| Core42 SuperPOD | operational | 2 MW |
| G42 Artemis | operational | 1 MW |
| Condor Galaxy 1 (CG-1) | operational | not recorded |
| Core42 AI-03 | operational | not recorded |
| OpenAI Stargate UAE | under construction | not recorded |
1 of the 16 linked facilities are in Epoch’s frontier catalog, carrying 0 MW between them. Sums cover only the facilities with a recorded figure; the count of those is printed beside each row of the table above, because a megawatt total whose denominator is invisible reads as a census when it is a partial sum.
Supply
This layer publishes what is known about the completeness of the supply picture, not the picture itself.
This layer is informed by subscription corporate-data sources covering the tracked supply graph — sources that cannot be republished, so what renders is the epistemic state they support: position in a distribution, a corroboration class, whether a contradiction was found. Never a relationship, a counterparty or a count from those sources directly.
No supply relationship involving this organization appears in the tracked graph of 5,086 organizations. That is a fact about the graph’s coverage — largely filings-visible and vendor-tracked companies — not a statement that the organization has no suppliers.
The control ledger names no counterparty pairs to check against the supply corpus, so no corroboration class is derivable.
No contradiction between the subscription-licensed corpus and the public-record claims rendered on this page was found in the review of Aug 12, 2026. Where such a contradiction is found, the public claim renders here with a flag that conflicting subscription evidence exists — the flag is the maximum disclosure.
Working detail — grades, sources, and what is withheld
1 · How claims are graded
No confidence value is stored anywhere. Each grade is derived when the page renders from three recorded facts — the authority tier of the source, who disclosed it, and whether the value is flagged as an estimate — so a grade cannot disagree with the claim it sits beside.
Attested Stated in a primary or research-grade record by the subject, a counterparty to the relation, or a regulator.
Reported Carried by press or third-party reporting rather than a party’s own record.
Inferred Derived or estimated — including ceilings a party states as “up to” figures.
An estimate outranks its source: a ceiling stated in a counterparty’s own press release (“up to 5 GW”) grades inferred, because the number is a bound and not a measurement.
2 · Where each layer reads
Control. control_relations only — never a facility’s owner or operator column. Those columns carry, for catalog rows, a copy of the hardware-owner field whose own published definition disclaims facility ownership and operation, so they were retired as attribution sources.
Constraint. Export-control designations anchored to Federal Register citations, the platform’s designation-to-organisation cross-reference, and rule-derived country access classifications.
Disclosure posture. The Global LEI Foundation golden copy — registration, parent-reporting declarations, and consolidation records — read by the organisation’s own identifier, plus its SEC registrant record where one exists.
Capacity. The facilities substrate, with Epoch AI cited per record for catalog rows.
3 · How absence is recorded
Three states, kept apart everywhere on this page. Rows: the record holds claims. Searched, nothing admissible: a search was run, its method and date are printed, and what it found could not be reduced to a citable primary. Not swept: no search is on file.
Collapsing the last two would let a budget limit read as a finding about the world. A lead that cannot be traced to a document is recorded as a lead, never as a row.
4 · What is not published, and why
Some records here were established with reference to subscription corporate-data sources that cannot be republished. Where that applies, the published record cites the public primary that establishes it; the subscription source informed only which records to seek and how complete we believe the result to be. No subscription-sourced record, identifier or value is served by this site.
That is why the supply layer publishes a percentile band rather than a count, and a corroboration class rather than a list. Those forms cannot be inverted back into the underlying rows, which is the property that makes them publishable at all.
Everywhere else on this page, a derived figure prints the operands it was computed from.
The four records in this instrument were chosen to span the cases the substrate has to handle: compute held only by contract, compute held by title, compute held by operation, and an organisation the public record barely reaches. Other organisations have directory entries; a record like this one exists where the control layer has been swept.