DOKU INFRASTRUCTURE
ILLUSTRATIVE AI INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNICAL CREDIT DECISION RECORD

Record: AI-TC-001
Method: Technical underwriting note 01, version 1.0
Status: Conditional, pending evidence
Customer data: None
Reliance: None

IMPORTANT

This is an illustrative output template. It is not customer work, a completed
transaction, a credit rating, an engineering conclusion, legal advice, an
investment recommendation, a forecast, or evidence of predictive performance.

FINANCING DECISION

Whether funding should remain conditioned on workload-representative acceptance
evidence and defined topology remediation rights.

INTENDED WORKLOAD

Large-scale distributed training across an 8,000-GPU cluster.

OBSERVED TECHNICAL FACT

The proposed supplier controls fabric topology, replacement, and remediation.
The current evidence set does not include an accepted workload-representative
test across the intended scale and failure domains.

SOURCE AUTHORITY

The borrower, supplier, responsible engineers, and testing specialists remain
authoritative for their source facts and conclusions. Doku tests how accepted
facts and remaining uncertainty affect workload performance and the credit
case. Lender credit retains approval authority.

EVIDENCE REVIEWED

- Current architecture and topology
- Intended workload and customer performance obligation
- Acceptance protocol and benchmark definition
- Supplier control-rights schedule
- Monitoring and incident-response design
- Hardware replacement and remediation process

EVIDENCE STILL REQUIRED

- Workload-representative performance output
- Scaling-efficiency and job-goodput evidence
- Failure-domain and recovery results
- Executed topology disclosure
- Defined remediation rights and accountable owners
- Recurring performance-reporting specification

CONFIDENCE

Medium, pending the required evidence.

TECHNICAL CONSEQUENCE

Topology mismatch, insufficient remediation rights, or incomplete acceptance
testing can reduce scaling efficiency, workload goodput, reliability, and
recovery speed.

COMMERCIAL CONSEQUENCE

The customer may receive slower or less reliable service, seek price relief,
move workloads, reduce renewal scope, or challenge the service obligation.

FINANCIAL EXPOSURE

Billable utilization, revenue, gross margin, EBITDA, debt-service coverage,
collateral value, and redeployability may fall below the approved case.

PROPOSED CREDIT ACTION

Condition funding on:

1. An accepted workload-representative test at the agreed scale
2. Topology and failure-domain disclosure
3. Defined supplier and borrower remediation rights
4. Recurring workload-performance and reliability reporting
5. Named action owners, deadlines, and closure evidence

DECISION OWNER

Lender credit.

CLOSURE EVIDENCE

- Signed acceptance protocol
- Accepted test output
- Executed control-rights schedule
- Accountable technical reviewer
- Evidence date and version
- Written lender disposition

RESIDUAL RISK

Supplier dependency, customer concentration, hardware competitiveness, and
redeployability remain explicit until independently resolved by the responsible
decision owners.

CHANGE CONTROL

Preserve:

- Prior and current technical state
- Changed assumption or evidence
- Source, date, and version
- Reviewer and decision owner
- Proposed action and disposition
- Remaining uncertainty and residual risk

ACCEPTANCE STANDARD

Every in-scope conclusion should cite its evidence, preserve source authority,
state confidence and missing evidence, explain the workload and financial
consequence, identify a proposed action and owner, define closure evidence, and
state residual risk.

Prepared by Jorg Doku
Founder, Doku Infrastructure
jorg@dokuinfra.com
https://www.dokuinfra.com/ai-infrastructure-technical-risk
https://calendly.com/jorg-dokuinfra/30min