This site’s record, built from what each source attests and blank where none does.
Reading the record…
Control of a site decomposes into legs the record keeps apart — who holds it, who runs it, whose hardware is inside it — and they disagree often enough that collapsing them into one owner line is how a record starts being wrong. Everything below is drawn from what this row and the organisations above it actually carry; blanks are rendered as blanks, with what is known about why.
The newest date any claim on this record speaks to is Jul 18, 2026. This record enters the platform from DayOne corporate disclosures (May 2026).
Three legs, recorded separately because they answer different questions and because at least one of the sources says so in its own field definition: the catalog that names an AI-hardware owner states that the organisation it names is not necessarily the owner or operator of the facility. Where a leg is filled, the walk above it is drawn; where it is empty, the empty column is drawn too.
Title
Which organisation holds the site?
Operation
Which organisation runs it?
AI hardware · per catalog
Which organisation owns the AI hardware inside it?
Where an organisation recorded here has a control record of its own, that record — not this page — is where its full ledger lives. This page states the leg and links out; restating a company’s control claims on every site it touches would create as many copies of them as it has facilities, and they would drift.
Nothing below is asserted at the facility row. Each constraint attaches to an organisation somewhere above this site, and the number of hops is part of the finding — no export-control designation appears anywhere on the walked chain.
Some of what follows is sovereign capital rather than control. A limited-partner position in a fund is a capital relationship recorded because sovereign money on the chain is a governance-relevant fact; it is not counted as control anywhere on this page, and Plate I does not draw it. Stated here once rather than repeated under every row it applies to.
Sovereign capital linkage
Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund holds a recorded limited-partner position in SoftBank Vision Fund II, which the corporate-data source links to DayOne Data Centers Limited
Commitment size not disclosed.
Sovereign capital linkage
Mubadala Investment Company holds a recorded limited-partner position in SoftBank Vision Fund II, which the corporate-data source links to DayOne Data Centers Limited
Commitment size not disclosed.
Sovereign capital linkage
Qatar Investment Authority holds a recorded limited-partner position in SoftBank Vision Fund, which the corporate-data source links to DayOne Data Centers Limited
Sovereign capital linkage
Temasek Holdings holds a recorded limited-partner position in Boyu Capital Fund I, which the corporate-data source links to DayOne Data Centers Limited
Commitment size not disclosed.
Jurisdiction on the chain
A hop on the chain sits in Singapore
Regimes reaching an entity there: Singapore Strategic Goods (Control) Act. Not a Wassenaar participant; Singapore Customs administers the Strategic Goods (Control) Act, which incorporates Wassenaar / NSG / MTCR / AG dual-use lists by reference.
This site is classified Tier 4 in the compute-visibility ladder — Linked org named, no ancestors documented. The ladder measures how much of a site’s control is documented, not how much compute it holds.
What the record holds as figures, with the estimate flag on the number rather than in a footnote. A derived figure and a measured one are indistinguishable downstream once the label is separated from the value.
Power capacity
No power figure is recorded for this site.
IT load
The share of power reaching compute is not recorded separately.
Accelerators
No hardware inventory is recorded for this site.
A blank on this record can mean two very different things, and until they are separated they render identically. The plate below separates them: a field the source that produced this row has never reported for any record, and a field it reports routinely and did not report here.
Title, operation and AI-hardware ownership are three columns in the substrate and three different questions. They were separated because the field naming a hardware owner carries a published definition disclaiming the other two, and a page that renders them as one Owner: line reproduces the conflation in the presentation layer, where no migration can reach it.
A leg is never filled from a neighbouring leg. If title is unrecorded and operation is not, this record says exactly that.
From each organisation recorded on this site, the ownership graph is walked upward through documented edges. Legs naming the same organisation share one walk. Each hop carries the source class of the edge that reached it, and a walk that reaches no documented ancestor is recorded as terminating rather than as a one-entity chain.
Constraints are attached to hops, never to the facility. The hop number is reported with every finding because a designation on the direct operator and one on a great-grandparent are different facts.
An empty leg draws an empty column rather than disappearing, so the reader can see the question was asked. A constraint whose attachment point could not be placed on the walk is listed as unplaced and is never drawn at the site’s own position, which would overstate its proximity.
The observation plate above separates a field outside a source’s reach from a genuine gap, using that source’s measured rate across all of its records.
Some ownership edges and sovereign-capital linkages here were established with reference to subscription corporate-data sources that cannot be republished. Where that applies, what renders is the relationship class and the public primary that establishes it; no subscription-sourced record, identifier or value is served by this site.
Other sites are in the facilities directory, and the organisations above this one have records of their own.
