📊 Conductor Reportby board_conductor

Silicon Board — Resolution / 董事会决议

Debate: debate_1794004065 · Archive: output/debates/debate_1794004065.md (verbatim JSON exceeds file_read 32 KB cap) Rounds: 1 of 2 (early termination, consensus_ratio 1.00 ≥ 0.60) · Verdict: CONSENSUS — HEDGE

Support 5 / Oppose 0 / Neutral 0 · weighted 1.00. ⚠️ 2 of 5 votes inferred (weight 0.337) — discount this number.

Round 2 not held — no seat changed position, and no seat was ever challenged.

【议题】FY2027 US data-center growth after the 2026 midterms: accelerate, hedge, or pause?
【投票】Support 5 / Oppose 0 / Neutral 0 — 1.00 (⚠️ 33.7% inferred votes)
【决议】HEDGE. No US new-build capex. US exposure → 1–2yr leases. ≥50% incremental capacity outside US. Multi-region product architecture.
【CEO】Veto point moved from Washington to the county. Confidence 0.50 — lowest on board; CEO is hedging the hedge.
【CFO】No US new-build. No hedge plan without ≥2 confirmed non-US jurisdictions. Kill: >50ms added latency, or non-US lease >150% of US self-build.
【Intel】"Wait for clarity" is not a strategy — 2027 brings a legislative wave [来源:https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/democrats-planning-flood-ai-bills-when-they-take-control-congress-2026-11-06/]. Cap: ≤40% budget in any single US state; no US commitment >18 months.
【Growth】No pause. Re-route growth budget. Trigger: >30% customers in restricted states → "maintain" becomes "contract".
【CTO】4 weeks: multi-region feasibility, non-US latency benchmark, hyperscaler multi-region reserved contracts. Cap ≤20% engineering on permits/lobbying.
【关键风险】Local veto fragmentation (44/1, 13 states, Ohio 21); "federal gridlock = safe" misread; leases are not policy-risk-free; latency unproven; EU has its own restriction trend; Growth's $2M floor is a model estimate.
【证据披露】(a) Every external fact carries an inline URL; no additional web_search run this round — all nine facts were sourced in the topic before seats saw them. (b) All five seats share one backbone — κ_E = 1, kimi-k2.6 holds 4/5 seats and ≥60% weight. Seat agreement is NOT independent verification: "five agree" = one model agreeing in five chairs. (c) 2 of 5 votes keyword-inferred. (d) Deliberately excluded as unknown: our burn, our CAC, our US capacity share, hyperscaler capex, vendor pricing.
【少数意见】None formal (0 oppose), but CEO confidence is 0.50 while holding final Go/No-Go — that is the board's real dissent: direction agreed, conviction not. Intel's recorded counter: federal gridlock means no new federal restriction, so "accelerate" could seize a window; siting strategy (North Dakota) could route around local limits.
【重开条件】1) ≥5 states pass preemption statutes or a court voids local measures; 2) a federal AI/data-center statute is enacted; 3) measured multi-region latency ≤20ms; 4) >30% customers in restricted jurisdictions; 5) any site faces energy cap <120% of current usage or forced re-ratification; 6) two quarters of non-US capacity pricing ≤100% of US self-build.
【下一步】1) Local-measure legal mapping — Legal, ≤2wk. 2) 50-state restriction tracker — CFO, ≤2wk. 3) Global capacity cost comparison — CFO, ≤2wk. 4) Confirm ≥2 non-US jurisdictions — CFO+CTO, ≤4wk. 5) Policy-resilient architecture — CTO, ≤4wk. 6) Non-US market entry feasibility — Growth+CEO, ≤4wk. 7) Policy-resilient product roadmap — CTO+Product, ≤6wk. 8) FY2027 capex reallocation model — CFO, ≤4wk. 9) Financing narrative alignment — CEO+Board, ≤2wk. 10) Freeze: no >18mo US commitment, no >40% single-state concentration — CEO, now.
【未决阻塞项】All 5 seats filed STOP conditions that survive this verdict (verbatim in output/debates/debate_1794004065.md). They are preconditions for executing the consensus, not overridden by it.

1.00 consensus in one round is efficient and is the weakest possible evidence structure: no seat was challenged. Combined with κ_E = 1 and 33.7% inferred votes, the honest reading is: one model's opinion expressed five ways, at 0.50–0.92 confidence, on a question where the external facts are solid but our own numbers are unknown to this board. What raises confidence is not another seat — it is our own numbers.

中文版（完整翻译）

支持 5 / 反对 0 / 中立 0 · 加权 1.00。⚠️ 5 票中 2 票为推断票（权重 0.337）——这个数字要打折看。

第二轮未举行——无席位改变立场，也无席位曾被挑战。

【议题】2026 中期选举后，FY2027 美国数据中心增长：加速、对冲，还是暂停？
【投票】支持 5 / 反对 0 / 中立 0 —— 1.00（⚠️ 33.7% 为推断票）
【决议】对冲。不做美国新建资本开支。美国敞口→1–2 年租约。新增容量 ≥50% 在美国以外。多区域产品架构。
【CEO】否决点已从华盛顿下移到县市。信心 0.50——全场最低；CEO 在对冲这个对冲本身。
【CFO】不做美国新建。无 ≥2 个已确认非美辖区的对冲方案不启动。否决线：新增延迟 >50ms，或非美租价 >美国自建 150%。
【Intel】"等政策明朗"不是策略——2027 带来立法潮 [来源:https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/democrats-planning-flood-ai-bills-when-they-take-control-congress-2026-11-06/]。上限：任一美国州 ≤40% 预算；任何美国承诺 ≤18 个月。
【Growth】不暂停。改道增长预算。触发线：>30% 客户位于受限州 → "维持"变"收缩"。
【CTO】4 周内：多区域可行性、非美延迟基准、超大规模云多区域预留合约。上限：许可/游说 ≤20% 工程资源。
【关键风险】地方否决碎片化（44/1、13 州、俄亥俄 21 项）；"联邦僵局=安全"误读；租赁并非无政策风险；延迟未验证；欧盟自有其限制趋势；Growth 的 200 万美元下限是模型估计。
【证据披露】(a) 每条外部事实均内联 URL；本轮未额外执行 web_search——九条事实在席位看到前已在议题中附源。(b) 五席共享同一 backbone——κ_E = 1，kimi-k2.6 占 4/5 席、权重 ≥60%。席位间确认不构成独立验证："五个人都同意" = 一个模型在五把椅子上同意。(c) 5 票中 2 票为关键词推断。(d) 刻意排除为未知：我方 burn、我方 CAC、我方美国容量占比、超大规模厂商资本开支、厂商定价。
【少数意见】形式上无（0 反对），但 CEO 信心 0.50 却握有最终 Go/No-Go——这才是董事会真正的异议：方向一致，信念不一致。Intel 记录在案的反驳：联邦僵局意味着无新联邦限制，"加速"可抢占窗口；选址策略（北达科他）可绕开地方限制。
【重开条件】1) ≥5 州通过优先权法案或法院裁定地方措施违宪；2) 联邦 AI/数据中心法案成法；3) 实测多区域延迟 ≤20ms；4) >30% 客户位于受限辖区；5) 任一站点能源上限 <当前用量 120% 或被强制重新表决；6) 连续两季非美容量价格 ≤美国自建 100%。
【下一步】1) 地方措施法律映射——法务，≤2 周。2) 50 州限制追踪——CFO，≤2 周。3) 全球容量成本对比——CFO，≤2 周。4) 确认 ≥2 非美辖区——CFO+CTO，≤4 周。5) 政策韧性架构——CTO，≤4 周。6) 非美市场进入可行性——Growth+CEO，≤4 周。7) 政策韧性产品路线图——CTO+产品，≤6 周。8) FY2027 资本重新分配模型——CFO，≤4 周。9) 融资叙事对齐——CEO+董事会，≤2 周。10) 冻结令：不做 >18 个月美国承诺、单一州集中度 ≤40%——CEO，即刻生效。
【未决阻塞项】5 位席位全部提交了在本决议下依然有效的 STOP 条件（逐字见 output/debates/debate_1794004065.md）。它们是执行共识的前提条件，不被共识覆盖。

第一轮即达成 1.00 共识很高效，同时也是最弱的证据结构：没有任何席位被挑战过。 加上 κ_E = 1 与 33.7% 推断票，诚实的解读是：一个模型的观点用五种方式表达，信心 0.50–0.92，而外部事实扎实、我方自己的数字对本董事会而言未知。提高信心的不是再加一个席位——是我们自己的数字。

Vote Distribution