Lease exhibit defines capacity three different ways and only one of them is contracted

Working through the diligence file on a stabilized fund's largest asset and I've spent two days on one exhibit.

The asset is described everywhere in the marketing as a 32 MW facility. In the lease, Exhibit C defines "Contracted Capacity" as 24 MW of critical IT load. Exhibit D, the utility schedule, references a 36 MVA service. The engineering report uses "design capacity" of 32 MW and footnotes that it assumes N+1 rather than 2N on the UPS plant. So the number that generates rent is 24, the number the wires can carry is roughly 29 at a reasonable power factor, and the number in the deck is 32.

None of that is dishonest by itself. What I can't resolve is what happens to the expansion story. The fund's model has a lease-up of the remaining "8 MW" at market rates starting in year three, and that 8 MW only exists if you measure from design capacity. Against contracted capacity and the actual service, the incremental block looks closer to 4 MW, and even that needs additional cooling capacity that the engineering report prices at a number I'd call a placeholder.

There's also a curtailment provision I've read four times. The tenant gets a rent abatement if critical load is interrupted beyond a stated annual threshold, and the threshold counts utility events. Most curtailment language I've seen carves out utility events on the theory that's what the generators are for. This one doesn't, or at least I can't find the carve-out.

So the two things in front of me: whether the expansion block is 8 or 4, and whether I'm underwriting an abatement exposure that the model treats as zero. I've asked for the interconnection agreement and the last three years of outage logs. If anyone has seen curtailment drafted this way and knows what it usually settles into, I'd like to hear it, because right now I'm assuming the worse reading of both.