The screen comes first.
Before a project earns real spending, it has to survive the questions a lender will ask at the end. Our pre-feasibility platform asks them at the start, in hours instead of weeks, so the cheap answers arrive before the expensive commitments.
STARTING WITH SOLAR · BUILT BY THE TEAM THAT SCREENS FOR OUR OWN CONSORTIUM
Engineering tools estimate. Lenders decide.
Design and yield software answers engineering questions: how many modules fit, what they produce, what they cost. Useful, and rarely the reason a deal dies. Deals die on upgrade cost allocation, on tenor, on basis, on equity that never commits. The screen is built around that second list.
What design tools answer
- How many modules fit the site
- What the array will produce at P50
- What the build will cost
What lenders ask
- Who bears the network upgrade cost
- Does the tenor cover the debt
- Where does basis settle
- Is anyone writing checks for this profile
Twenty checks, four pillars, one read.
Every check is a lender question with the evidence beside it, weighted the way credit committees actually weigh them, and rolled into a single read: advance, conditional, or walk.
Interconnection risk
Weight 30The queue position, the upgrade exposure, and the curtailment picture at the point of interconnection.
Yield credibility
Weight 25Whether the production estimate would survive an independent engineer.
Offtake strength
Weight 25Whether the revenue contract can carry the debt it needs to carry.
Capital structure
Weight 20Whether the stack clears lender floors, and whether it matches live mandates in our funding network.
Clears the lender test.The evidence holds as it stands.
Survivable if priced.A named risk with a cost to retire it.
No data yet.A gap named early is a gap priced early.
One project, screened.
This is a sample screen for Project ADG-2603, an 80 MWac single axis site in West Texas. The numbers are illustrative. The structure is exactly what the platform returns.
The cheapest money on the project.
Every screen closes with the economics of the decision itself. In the sample above, $180K is committed, the next gate commits $1.4M, and retiring all three flags costs $60K. Finding the same problems after financial close would cost an estimated $2.1M. So the screen ends in a ranked list of the cheapest next actions, and the next dollar goes where it retires the most risk. Every read lands in one of three bands.
The flags outprice the project. Stop before the next gate, and keep the loss at what is already committed.
Financeable shape. Hold spend until the named flags clear, then rescreen.
The evidence holds. Take it to the table.
The check nobody else can run.
A score tells you a project is financeable in principle. It cannot tell you whether anyone is writing checks for this profile right now. Our screen can, because the last check runs the project against live mandates in the A-D funding network, the same consortium we place our own work through. That row is not a feature we added. It is the reason the platform exists.
Where it stands.
The screen engine is at v0.4 and in active development, starting with solar. Early access is limited, and priority goes to active clients and consortium partners.
Sample data for concept review. A screen ranks risk early, it is not a lending decision.