This is the deliverable a screening engagement produces, shown in full. Five illustrative candidate coordinates went into the candidate-site screen (POST /v2/insights/siting/sites, methodology v1.7) on 12–13 July 2026; what came back is an exception ledger: each site gets one of four verdicts (proceed, investigate, reject or insufficient evidence), with the material findings, the evidence behind them, the coverage gaps stated per check, and a frozen, retrievable answer receipt. The coordinates are illustrative; the evidence, the verdicts and the receipt are real and pinned to the run below. There is no score: a site with no visible connection path fails a gate, and a site whose evidence is too thin is abstained on, never ranked low.
| Candidate | Verdict | Material finding / basis | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| D · Tromsø, NO 300 MW | reject | Nearest ≥275 kV substation (Balsfjord, 420 kV) is 52.1 km away; beyond the 40 km connection gate. No visible EHV connection path at screening grain. | Stop, or supply connection evidence Kortex cannot see. |
| A · Teesside, GB 300 MW | investigate | 400 kV substation 3.1 km away and 18 EHV points within 25 km; but the operator’s own published demand headroom at the nearest connection-grade point (Seal Sands, 66 kV supply point, 2.5 km) is 60.4 MW against a 300 MW target, and 7,375 MW is already accepted-to-connect within 50 km (225 projects, ECR vintage 2026-02-17), a further 10.4 GW of transmission-level pipeline at 10 stitched TEC connection sites, 4,615 MW in the local planning pipeline (116 REPD projects) and three live NSIP hydrogen cases within 20 km. | Operator feasibility inquiry, or evidence of a different connection point. |
| C · Permian Basin, US-TX 300 MW | investigate | 345 kV substation 6.8 km away, 59 queue projects within 50 km (30% completion); but basin baseline water stress is extremely high: a wet-cooled load needs a cooling-water story before the site can carry it. | Confirm cooling technology and water source; dry/hybrid cooling changes this materially. |
| B · Leeds fringe, GB 150 MW | investigate | 275 kV substation 6.1 km away and published demand headroom at Kirkstall B GSP (132 kV, 6.2 km) is 202.6 MW against a 150 MW target, RAG green; but 11,165 MW is already accepted-to-connect within 50 km (396 projects, ECR vintage 2026-02-17): a heavy contracted pipeline competes for local network capacity ahead of a new application. | Check DNO headroom and the queue position implied by the local accepted pipeline before committing. |
| E · Dublin fringe, IE 300 MW | investigate | 400 kV converter station 13.6 km away and low-medium water stress; but ESB Networks’ own published demand availability at the nearest connection-grade point (Finglas 220 kV station, 38 kV group, 5.6 km) is 0.0 MVA against a 300 MW target; the Dublin connection constraint, visible in the operator’s July 2026 publication; with 21 projects (452 MW) already contracted or in assessment at connection nodes within 50 km (EirGrid + ESB DSO lists). | Operator feasibility inquiry, or evidence of a different connection point. |
The fourth verdict, insufficient_evidence, is returned when fewer than three checks produce evidence at a site: the decision cannot be defended, so the screen abstains instead of scoring. None of these five triggered it; the thinnest non-rejected dossiers are Candidates C and E at 5 of 8.
The same shortlist, re-screened twice. These exact five candidates were screened three times on 12 July 2026 as the graph grew, and each run is frozen by its own receipt: 56da6c4a (morning), 19e2acc7 (after the GB connection registers landed), and the run on this page. Candidate B flipped proceed → investigate when the GB Embedded Capacity Register exposed an 11.2 GW accepted pipeline nearby; Candidate E flipped when ESB Networks’ published capacity exposed 0.0 MVA demand availability around Dublin. Both facts existed all along; they were public, just not connected. Two more enrichments the same night added the Irish connection registers (EirGrid TSO contracted + ESB DSO lists) and the GB planning pipeline (REPD + the NSIP register); and a final enrichment added the EA regulatory water layers (CAMS abstraction classes + Flood Zones 2/3); the screen ran eight checks that night, and the GB candidates carried 7 of 8 with evidence; the screen has since grown further (the path-to-power ledger, land fabric). Comparing any two receipts shows exactly what changed and why. That is what re-screening a saved shortlist against a growing graph looks like.
This run was archived at computation time. The receipt returns the canonical answer exactly as computed (not a recomputation) with the request parameters, the per-source register records and each source’s dataset_version fingerprint as they stood. graph_snapshot_id pins the schema/source register; data_snapshot_id pins the observed data state of every contributing source.
receipt_id 26aa555c-754c-4810-b69d-aee868119569 computed_at 2026-07-13T02:27:00Z graph_snapshot a9bf4e98efe40f92 data_snapshot eb06a7bcba693f49 curl https://kortex.orkora.com/v2/receipts/26aa555c-754c-4810-b69d-aee868119569
Receipt retrieval is public: anyone you forward this to can pull the frozen answer without a key and verify the response hash. Re-running the screen returns the current graph’s answer, which may differ; that difference is the point of the receipt.
Take the deliverable itself: the same frozen answer as the client-ready artifact; download XLSX (exception ledger · findings · evidence · provenance sheets) or download PDF (the screening memo). Both are rendered from the receipt, never recomputed, and carry the snapshot ids and response hash for verification.
The second screen template shares the first one’s discipline. Six illustrative counterparties; identified by LEI, Companies House number, or bare legal name; went into the diligence screen (POST /v2/insights/diligence/entities, methodology v1.0) on 14 July 2026. Same four verdicts, same exception-ledger shape, same receipt. There is no risk score: an exact primary sanctions-list match fails a gate; an entity the registers cannot identify is abstained on, never guessed at.
| Counterparty | Verdict | Material finding / basis | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| E · submitted as a bare name “BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA” | reject | Exact primary sanctions-list match: BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA (OFAC SDN, programs: CUBA). The gate fires on the submitted name even though the registries cannot resolve the identity; a designation match must not hide behind a resolution failure. | Refer to sanctions counsel before ANY further step. |
| F · submitted as a bare name “Meridian Consolidated Energy Partners” | insufficient_evidence | No register (GLEIF, 3.36M entities, or Companies House, 5.73M) carries this name, exactly or punctuation-normalised. The screen abstains and lists the closest register candidates; it never guesses an identity into a verdict. | Supply an LEI or Companies House number. |
| B · BlackRock, Inc. LEI 529900VBK4… | investigate | One high-confidence ICIJ offshore-leaks candidate: “Blackrock Fund Inc.” (St Kitts & Nevis, match score 0.737); a namesake to adjudicate, not a finding of wrongdoing. Ownership-network position on-row: 100th-percentile centrality, 115 reported direct children, a control family of 73,617 entities. | Review the ICIJ records and confirm identity before drawing conclusions. |
| D · Eagle New Energy Ltd CH 06367329 | investigate | Companies House status: Liquidation; and 6 outstanding registered charges (2 satisfied): assets are pledged as security, scope unknown at count grain. Dossier in full below. | Obtain the insolvency practitioner’s filings before any reliance. |
| A · Iberdrola SA submitted “IBERDROLA, S.A.” | proceed | Resolved by punctuation-normalised name to LEI 5QK37QC7…; ACTIVE in GLEIF; sanctions searched (zero exact matches, vintage on-row); ICIJ searched (zero); observed footprint in the Kortex graph: 173 stitched generators, 47.0 GW across six fuels, modelled attributed revenue $2.4B. | No visible screening-level disqualifier; merits confirmatory KYC. |
| C · Savills IM LLP CH OC306423 | proceed | CH number joins GLEIF through the registration-authority map (LEI 529900ZIX1…); Active + ACTIVE on both registers; PSC names a corporate controller (Savills IM Holdings Limited); zero outstanding charges; 8 of 9 checks with evidence. | No visible screening-level disqualifier; merits confirmatory KYC. |
Verdict order is the contract: reject = a gate failed (sanctions, or a legally dead entity) · insufficient_evidence = identity unresolved or the dossier is too thin to defend · investigate = material findings need resolving · proceed = no visible screening-level disqualifier, never a clean bill.
receipt_id c93dc919-2a2b-4328-8213-0ed809875f5c computed_at 2026-07-14T02:13:40Z graph_snapshot c77503da11cd844e data_snapshot 707ed0728e2de441 curl https://kortex.orkora.com/v2/receipts/c93dc919-2a2b-4328-8213-0ed809875f5c
Take the deliverable itself: download XLSX (exception ledger · findings · evidence · provenance sheets) or download PDF (the screening memo). Rendered from the frozen receipt, never recomputed.