This restricted-source chapter summary covers Exhibits A-F on pages 53-114 of
the appeal package. These exhibits support the appeal's noise, power, public
interest, plan-sheet, and community-comment arguments.
The exhibits directly show what appellants attached and argued. They do not, by
themselves, authenticate every source in native custodian form or validate every
technical/legal inference.
| Exhibit | Pages | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit A | 53-60 | Acoustic-record defect argument focused on DLAA Rev C |
| Exhibit B | 61-75 | Power-overview authentication narrative and CSU-response rendering |
| Exhibit C | 76-82 | Public-interest, petition/comment, and moratorium context |
| Exhibit D | 83-103 | Ford Amphitheater peer-review analogy |
| Exhibit E | 104 | Annotated reproduction of approved M201 plan sheet |
| Exhibit F | 105-114 | Historic Neighborhoods Partnership correspondence |
The exhibit cluster is strongest as an evidence map: it shows exactly what the
appellants are relying on. Its weakest points are custody and applicability:
several exhibit claims require original CORA exports, native City plan sheets,
official public-comment records, or technical review before they can support
public-facing factual conclusions.
The exhibits support the appeal's mechanisms: source authentication, technical
critique, public-interest demonstration, comparative noise analogy, annotated
plan-sheet discrepancy, and community-comment supplementation.
| Source | Target | Mechanism | Flow | Evidence strength | Source basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle McGuffey attributed statement | Raeden power overview | CORA authentication statement | Custody narrative | reported relationship / restricted-source lead | Exhibit B |
| CSU attributed response | Project Taurus utility questions | Email response rendering | Utility clarification claims | reported relationship / restricted-source lead | Exhibit B |
| Ford Amphitheater peer review | Project Taurus noise argument | Technical analogy | Corroboration attempt | candidate lead | Exhibit D |
| HNP correspondence | Planning Commission / public record | Public-comment submission | Community-position evidence | reported relationship | Exhibit F |
Exhibit E creates a concrete tension between 50 MW project framing and a
reproduced M201 image showing two 50 MW data halls. It also highlights possible
chiller and generator count ambiguity. These are strong source-retrieval leads,
not final proof of approved operating capacity.
See the page inventory and claim catalog listed in source_refs.
Priority next checks are CSU-native records for Exhibit B, native approved M201,
technical acoustical review for Exhibit A/D, and official public-comment/petition
records for Exhibit C/F. Publication approval is recorded for this summary, but
native source replacement remains preferred for public factual claims.