# Market Thesis Research Bundle

Question: Given the AI buildout, will water availability or reclaimed-water access become a binding siting constraint cited in new data-center announcements or utility filings rather than just a sustainability talking point?

What this bundle is: a reasoning and monitoring scaffold. It organizes public evidence into observations, claims, uncertainty branches, thresholds, and a watch plan.

What this bundle is not: primary evidence, live market data, trade advice, or a substitute for official, live, or current web sources.

Core tension: {'id': 'ai-data-center-water-constraint-binding-siting', 'text': 'Given the AI buildout, will water availability or reclaimed-water access become a binding siting constraint cited in new data-center announcements or utility filings rather than just a sustainability talking point?', 'theme': 'AI data-center water constraints', 'category': 'structural_regime_change', 'entity_theme_fit': 'Water access affects site selection, cooling design, permitting, and local opposition for large AI campuses.', 'resolution_or_review_boundary': 'new project announcements, utility filings, and local permitting decisions over the next 2 to 3 quarters'}

Current inference to verify: {'stance': 'yes, but unevenly and first in water-stressed or regulated jurisdictions', 'confidence': 0.82, 'status': 'inference_to_verify', 'summary': 'Primary-source evidence already shows water access moving from generic sustainability framing into site selection, permitting, and service decisions. The strongest signals are a Florida 2026 data-center water bill that requires reclaimed water when available and accessible, a Ypsilanti utility moratorium on water and sewer service for new data centers, and company announcements from Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Beale that explicitly cite water availability, reclaimed water, local utility coordination, or water infrastructure in new site decisions.', 'interpretation_boundaries': ['This is an emerging siting constraint, not a universal industry-wide hard cap.', 'The binding cases are local and regulatory first.', 'Many announcements still use stewardship language rather than explicit bottleneck language.']} Treat this as a hypothesis that must be refreshed against live official sources, not as a signal.

How to use: read `source_priority.json` first, refresh sources in `live_verification_plan.json`, then use `fact_inference_split.json`, `thresholds.json`, and `watch_schedule.json` to decide what changed. Do not infer buy/sell/hold, position sizing, execution, or asset-price direction from this artifact.