NC-METH-001 v1.1 — Part E: Estate-Deployment Runbook¶
Decision Tree · Data Requirements · Phase 0A Desktop · Phase 0B Field · IC Preparation · Reviewer Checklist¶
12 May 2026 · Internal · Authors: AI-assisted, M. Forni / S. Rubinyi / K. Suddhi-Dhamakit review
E.0 Overview¶
Part E is the operational runbook for taking a new IEAT estate from "we have a 25-year concession" to "investment-grade IC submission." Where Parts A–D describe what the methodology does, Part E describes how the team executes it on each new estate.
The runbook covers six operational stages, executed roughly sequentially with feedback loops:
| Stage | Timeline | Lead | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| E.1 Pre-intake screening | Week 0–2 | Marc + Kwan | Go / No-Go / Conditional decision |
| E.2 Data acquisition | Week 2–4 | Kwan | Data set complete |
| E.3 Phase 0A desktop | Month 1–3 | Analyst + Steven | Pre-IC memo |
| E.4 Phase 0B field work | Month 4–9 | Kwan + external SOWs | Investment-grade segment register |
| E.5 IC preparation | Month 10–12 | Marc + Jin Yong + analyst | IC paper + financial model + deck |
| E.6 IC submission and FID | Month 12+ | IC + Marc | FID approval |
The runbook is opinionated: it specifies which deliverables, in which order, with which gates. Deviations are allowed where estate-specific circumstances warrant, but the deviation and rationale must be documented in the change log (per Part F).
Reference template: NC-IC-LC-001 (Laem Chabang IC Paper v1.1, 28 April 2026) is the canonical IC deliverable that every subsequent estate should mirror in structure. NC-FM-LC-001 v1.0 is the canonical financial model template.
This Part is written for Kwan (Thailand Director) and Steven Rubinyi (COO) as primary audience; analysts running new-estate intake as secondary audience.
E.1 Pre-intake screening¶
E.1.1 Pre-intake context¶
Before allocating any Phase 0 resources, the team conducts a desktop pre-screen to decide whether the estate warrants full intake. Pre-screening takes ~2 weeks of analyst time.
The five pre-intake gates:
- Concession status: Is the 25-year MSA executed and in force? Or is this still under negotiation? Methodology requires executed MSA before Phase 0 resource allocation.
- Estate scale: Does the estate have ≥ 10 MWp realistic envelope potential? Below this threshold, Phase 0 fixed costs (procurement SOWs ~$50–80K) make economics unfavourable.
- Estate geography: Are the six canonical typologies addressable? An estate with only T1 + T2 (no canopies, no canals) caps the achievable envelope and degrades the methodology's competitive advantage.
- Tenant inventory: Are at least 5 Tier-1 candidate anchors visible from desktop screening? Insufficient anchors means weak tenant-attributed economics.
- Regulatory clarity: Is the estate covered by BOI Activity 5.2.1? EEC vs non-EEC? Any specific regulatory complications (e.g., land-lease structure, dormant JVs, jurisdictional disputes)?
Each gate is a binary yes/no. The decision matrix:
| Yes count | Decision |
|---|---|
| 5 / 5 | GO — full Phase 0 |
| 4 / 5 | CONDITIONAL — proceed but flag the failing gate as a stage-gate risk; revisit at end of Phase 0A |
| ≤ 3 / 5 | DECLINE or DEFER — return to pipeline review; not ready for Phase 0 |
E.1.2 Pre-intake deliverable¶
Estate Intake Memo (EIM): 4–6 page memo authored by analyst, reviewed by Kwan, approved by Marc. Contents:
- Estate facts: name, area (rai), location, concession status, BOI category
- Tentative envelope: kWp range by typology (desktop ranges; not investment-grade)
- Five pre-intake gates with yes/no + supporting evidence
- Recommendation: GO / CONDITIONAL / DECLINE
- If CONDITIONAL: specific gate-closure plan
- Phase 0 budget request (typically $80–120K for full Phase 0)
The EIM is filed in methodology-package/estate-intake/ with naming convention EIM_{ESTATE_CODE}_v1.0.md (e.g., EIM_BP_v1.0.md, EIM_LK_v1.0.md).
E.1.3 Pipeline status of 13 estates (May 2026)¶
| Estate | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Laem Chabang (LC) | IC submitted v1.1 (28 Apr 2026) | Reference template; canonical |
| Bangpoo (BP) | Phase 0 active | OSM boundary locked; v6.5 register live |
| Lat Krabang | Pre-intake; CONDITIONAL | Land-lease estate; T1 invalid (tenants own buildings); needs gate-2 sub-screening |
| Map Ta Phut (MTP) | Pre-intake screening | Largest estate; high envelope potential |
| MTP Port | Pre-intake screening | Port-specific deployment patterns |
| Bangplee | Pre-intake screening | Land-lease similar to Lat Krabang |
| Lamphun | Pre-intake screening | Northern; smaller scale; T1 invalid |
| Smart Park | Pre-intake screening | Newer development |
| Songkhla | Pre-intake screening | Coastal; corrosion considerations |
| Songkhla-S + Rubber City | Pre-intake screening | Large estate; T2-heavy |
| Phichit | Pre-intake screening | Northern; T2-heavy |
| Sa Kaeo | Pre-intake screening | Eastern; smaller |
| Bang Chan | Pre-intake screening | Older; building-age concerns |
| Kaeng Khoi | Pre-intake screening | Newer EEC-adjacent |
| Nakhon Luang | Pre-intake screening | Mixed; medium scale |
LC is the only estate at IC-submitted status as of May 2026. BP is the next estate in Phase 0 execution.
E.2 Data acquisition¶
E.2.1 IEAT-side data (Kwan-led)¶
Required from IEAT counterparty before Phase 0A starts:
| Item | Source | Status check |
|---|---|---|
| Estate cadastral map (current) | IEAT Land Department | ≤ 12 months old |
| Concession agreement (MSA) | IEAT legal | Executed and in force |
| IEAT lease records (per-parcel) | IEAT estate operations | Tenant-attributed parcels enumerated |
| IEAT engineering drawings | IEAT engineering office | Internal road, canal, MV network |
| IEAT environmental permits | IEAT compliance | Current and applicable |
| IEAT JV terms for the estate | IEAT corporate / legal | 75.5/24.5 standard or estate-specific |
| Concession-amendment status | IEAT legal | Any pending changes |
Some IEAT estates have older or incomplete records. Where data is missing, request via formal letter to IEAT estate manager; expect 4–6 weeks turnaround.
E.2.2 Geographic data (analyst-led)¶
| Item | Source | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| OSM ways for estate boundary | OpenStreetMap | Free |
| Microsoft Building Footprints (2024) | Microsoft Open Data | Free |
| Sentinel-2 satellite imagery | ESA Copernicus | Free |
| Pleiades or WorldView (high-res) | Commercial; GISTDA partner | $2–4K per estate |
| GISTDA cadastral overlay | Government partnership | Pre-negotiated |
| LDD soil maps | Government (Land Development Dept) | Free |
| Google Street View / 360 | Free for sampling; commercial for systematic |
For canal-rich estates (LC, BP), Sentinel-2 isn't sufficient resolution to verify >15m canal widths; Pleiades is required.
E.2.3 Tenant data (Kwan + analyst-led)¶
| Item | Source | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Tenant inventory at estate | IEAT lease records | Free; via IEAT |
| Tenant industry / business activity | DBD Thailand business registry | Free |
| Tenant group / parent company | DBD + S&P Capital IQ + IR pages | Free / desktop |
| Tenant financial statements | DBD (Thai-incorporated) + investor relations (public) | Free / desktop |
| Tenant lease terms | IEAT estate operations | Per request |
| Tenant existing energy contract | Tenant direct (Phase 0B LOI campaign) | Negotiated |
Tenant inventory should be cross-verified between IEAT records + GPlaces multi-source + OSM POI tags. Discrepancies (tenant has moved, tenant operates at different parcel) get flagged and resolved.
E.2.4 Engineering data (analyst-led)¶
| Item | Source | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Existing MV switchgear locations | IEAT engineering | Cable routing and interconnect sizing |
| PEA (Provincial Electricity Authority) hosting capacity | PEA local office (SOW-03) | Whether export-permitted at PCC |
| Existing drainage networks | IEAT engineering | Canopy drainage routing (T4A/T4B-DC/T6W) |
| Internal road network | OSM + IEAT engineering | T4B-DC carriageway widths and lengths |
| Existing PV installations | Direct survey | Ground-truth yield validation |
| Fire and safety zoning | IEAT compliance | BESS siting + setback rules |
E.2.5 Regulatory data (Kwan-led)¶
| Item | Source |
|---|---|
| BOI Activity 5.2.1 eligibility | BOI Thailand |
| EEC Phase 0 enhancement status | EEC Secretariat (for EEC-located estates) |
| Environmental zoning / EIA scope | DEQP (Department of Environmental Quality Promotion) |
| ICC Aug 2025 carbon mechanism applicability | TGO + DEQP |
| Concession-area land use (vs zoning) | IEAT + local municipal authority |
| Specific local regulatory complications | Local authority + IEAT counsel |
E.2.6 Data completeness gate¶
Before Phase 0A starts, the analyst confirms all data in E.2.1–E.2.5 is in hand (or formally requested with expected delivery date). Missing items get flagged and Phase 0A schedule adjusted.
E.3 Phase 0A — Desktop¶
Phase 0A runs ~3 months; output is a Pre-IC Memo with the desktop investment envelope.
E.3.1 Estate boundary delineation (per B.1)¶
- OSM polygon as primary; IEAT cadastral for legal status
- Total area in rai and km²
- Concession-inside / polygon-outside flagged parcels
E.3.2 Surface enumeration (per B.2)¶
- Per-typology candidate surface identification
- Building footprint extraction
- Road network mapping
- Canal segment identification (Pleiades for canal width verification)
- Parking lot polygon digitisation
- Aspirational reserve typologies (T1X / T2X / T6X) enumerated
E.3.3 Initial capacity sizing (per B.3)¶
Apply per-typology kWp/m² coefficients from Part C (C.X.3) with setback rules. Estimate is intentionally conservative — actual capacity may revise upward in Phase 0B as field detail arrives.
E.3.4 Tenant identification and tier assignment screen¶
- Multi-source tenant identification (GPlaces + OSM + IEAT records)
- Group / parent identification (DBD + Capital IQ)
- Tier-1 anchor candidate list (the LOI campaign targets)
- Identify any concentration risk (multiple segments → single group)
E.3.5 Confidence scoring (per B.7)¶
- Initial confidence score per segment (most segments will start at MEDIUM or LOW pending Phase 0B)
- Aspirational reserve segments flagged (< 0.20)
E.3.6 Pre-Phase 0B desktop investment envelope¶
The desktop envelope is the Phase 0A output: per-typology capacity, per-segment unit cost, total EPC, indicative offtaker mix, identified anchors, identified concentration risks. This is not investment-grade — it's the basis for Phase 0B procurement scoping.
E.3.7 Pre-IC Memo deliverable¶
8–12 pages, structure:
- Estate overview (boundary, area, BOI status)
- Active envelope (kWp by typology + CAPEX)
- Tier-1 anchor list (12 for LC — set this as the target for the estate)
- Concentration risk summary
- Phase 0B procurement budget and SOW scoping
- Identified gaps and risk register
- Phase 0B work plan with timeline
Filed as Pre-IC_Memo_{ESTATE_CODE}_v1.0.md in methodology-package/{estate_code}/.
E.4 Phase 0B — Field¶
Phase 0B runs ~6–9 months. Procurement-heavy phase; per-estate budget $80–120K all-in.
E.4.1 Five standard procurement SOWs¶
Per LC reference (NC-PR-LC-001 v1.0):
| SOW | Scope | Budget | Vendor type |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOW-01 LOI Campaign | Tier-1 anchor LOI signing | $15–20K | Local engagement firm |
| SOW-02 ROOF-001 | Rooftop structural + ACM screening | $15–25K | Engineering firm |
| SOW-03 PEA Hosting Capacity | Grid interconnect study | $5–10K | PEA consultant or PEA direct |
| SOW-04 EIA Addendum | Environmental addendum to existing EIA | $15–25K | EIA specialist firm |
| SOW-05 KTB IE | Independent Engineer due diligence | $30–40K | Lender-side engineering firm |
Other estate-specific procurement (e.g., T6W bathymetric survey) is scoped per estate.
E.4.2 ROOF-001 — Rooftop structural + ACM (T1)¶
- Structural assessment per rooftop in active T1 envelope
- ACM (asbestos-containing materials) screening for buildings older than ~2000
- Output: per-rooftop pass/fail/reinforcement-required
- Failure rates: methodology assumes 15–25% of initial T1 candidates fail; reserve typology T1X covers some replacement
E.4.3 RTK GPS — Parcel boundary (T2)¶
- High-precision GPS survey of T2 parcel boundaries
- Resolves IEAT-cadastral vs operational-reality discrepancies
- Validates 5 m boundary setback against actual parcel geometry
- Output: per-parcel adjusted kWp
E.4.4 Bathymetric + bank-soundness (T6W)¶
- Water depth profile across canal segments
- Bank-soundness assessment (load-bearing capacity for portal foundations)
- Seasonal water-level data (flood / dry season)
- Output: per-T6W-segment portal design parameters
E.4.5 Field walk (T4B-DC + general verification)¶
- Internal road network walk for T4B-DC carriageway width measurement
- Overhead utility identification (utility relocation cost estimation)
- Pedestrian / cyclist provisions
- General verification of all active envelope segments
E.4.6 Tenant LOI campaign¶
- Tier-1 anchor LOI signing
- Target: 70%+ Tier-1 LOI signed before IC submission
- LOI is non-binding indicative interest; ESA negotiations come after FID
- Failures get flagged; concentration risk re-assessed
E.4.7 PEA hosting capacity¶
- Local PEA office study of interconnect capacity at PCC
- Whether export-permitted (rare in BTM-only deployment)
- Substation capacity headroom
- Output: hosting capacity ceiling per estate
E.4.8 EIA Addendum¶
- DEQP-filed addendum to existing IEAT estate EIA
- Methodology assumes existing IEAT EIA covers PV deployment as adjacent activity
- Some estates may need EIA from scratch (older estates)
- Output: EIA approval certificate
E.4.9 KTB Independent Engineer (IE)¶
- Lender-side engineering due diligence
- Independent verification of methodology, segments, financial model
- Output: KTB IE report (lender-acceptable)
- Methodology should match what KTB IE expects; gaps flagged become AUDIT items
E.4.10 Phase 0B deliverable: investment-grade segment register¶
The output of Phase 0B is the investment-grade segment register (per LC: NC-IS-LC-001 v1.0). This replaces the Phase 0A desktop register and feeds the IC paper + financial model.
Contents per segment:
- Identifier (e.g., BP-T4A-03)
- Coordinates (centroid + polygon)
- Area (m²)
- Typology + applicable adjustments
- kWp (post-Phase 0B refinement)
- Unit cost ($/kWp; LC v1.0 register or estate-specific)
- Offtaker attribution (IEAT-direct or tenant name)
- Tier assignment (Tier-1 / Tier-2 / Tier-3 / N/A)
- Confidence score (post-verification)
- Proof status (VERIFIED / CONFIRMED / PENDING)
- Source columns (which verification artefacts confirm)
- LOI status (if tenant-attributed)
E.5 IC preparation¶
E.5.1 Minimum IC-grade proof set¶
Every estate IC submission requires:
| Artefact | Status required |
|---|---|
| Estate boundary polygon (RTK-verified at corners) | VERIFIED |
| Active envelope segment register | All segments VERIFIED or CONFIRMED |
| Tier-1 anchor LOI set | ≥ 70% by anchor-attributed CAPEX |
| ROOF-001 outcomes for all T1 segments | Complete; failures replaced from T1X |
| Bathymetric for all T6W segments | Complete |
| Field walk for all T4B-DC segments | Complete |
| PEA hosting capacity confirmed | Letter from PEA |
| EIA addendum approval | DEQP certificate |
| KTB IE report | Issued and reviewed |
| IEAT JV term sheet executed | Estate-specific terms |
If any are missing or downgraded, IC submission is deferred until closure.
E.5.2 IC Paper structure (per NC-IC-LC-001 v1.1 template)¶
7 sections + 4 annexes:
- Executive summary (1 page)
- Investment thesis (4–6 pages)
- Financial structure and returns (8–10 pages)
- Active envelope (6–8 pages with per-typology breakdown)
- Risk register and mitigations (4–6 pages)
- Phase 0 outcomes summary (2–3 pages)
- Recommendation and conditions (1–2 pages)
Annexes: - A: Per-segment register - B: Financial model summary (tabular) - C: Tier-1 anchor profiles - D: Independent Engineer report
Total IC paper: 30–45 pages plus annexes.
E.5.3 Financial model construction¶
NC-FM-LC-001 v1.0 is the template. Construction sequence per new estate:
- Inputs tab: per-segment from Phase 0B register
- Construction tab: TPC build per D.2
- Operations tab: revenue per D.4 + OPEX per D.3
- Debt_Service tab: per D.7 with lender-sizing
- Returns tab: IRR / DSCR / NPV / MOIC / payback
- Tenant_Consent_Sensitivity tab: per Phase 0B LOI gaps
- Sensitivity tab: ±20% / ±10% Tornado per parameter
- Y10_Exit tab: per D.9 reanchor case
Cross-check: model outputs against methodology canonical (per Part D) — any variance >5% flagged.
E.5.4 IC Deck preparation¶
Per MasterDesignSystem v6 standard (memory edit): - 10×5.625" page size - Calibri font - Config A (navy/teal/amber) for IEAT estates - 23-slide template per NarrativeArc v39 standard
Slides: - 1: Title - 2–3: Investment thesis - 4–7: Active envelope (per-typology) - 8–10: Financial structure and returns - 11–14: Risk register - 15–18: Phase 0 outcomes - 19–21: Sensitivity and stress - 22: Y10 exit - 23: Recommendation
E.5.5 Pre-IC reviewer checklist¶
Before IC submission:
| Reviewer | Sign-off requirement |
|---|---|
| Kwan (Thailand Director) | Tenant LOI campaign completeness; IEAT JV terms executed; in-country regulatory clearance |
| Steven (COO) | Methodology compliance (Parts A–D applied consistently); financial model cross-checked; reviewer-checklist completeness |
| Marc (CEO) | Investment thesis; alignment with Fund I LP commitments; IEAT relationship status; final go/no-go |
| Benedikt (CRO) | Risk register adequate; material risks mitigated or insurance-covered; AUDIT register status |
| Jin Yong (CFO) | Financial structure; debt sizing approved by KTB initial response; equity sources confirmed |
| Chandra (Head of Carbon) | If carbon revenue is in base case: GS PoA registration plan; T-VER fall-back |
All five sign-offs required before IC submission. Sign-offs are tracked in methodology-package/{estate_code}/IC_Signoffs.md.
E.6 Per-estate timeline benchmark¶
E.6.1 LC reference (12 months from Phase 0A start to IC submission)¶
| Month | Milestone |
|---|---|
| 0 | EIM approved; Phase 0 budget allocated |
| 1 | Data acquisition complete; Phase 0A starts |
| 3 | Pre-IC Memo issued; Phase 0B procurement scoped |
| 4 | Phase 0B SOWs issued; vendors engaged |
| 7 | ROOF-001, RTK, bathymetric, field walks complete |
| 9 | LOI campaign 70%+ complete |
| 10 | KTB IE report received; EIA approval received |
| 11 | IC paper, financial model, deck drafted |
| 12 | Pre-IC reviewer sign-offs; IC submitted |
E.6.2 Estate-specific adjustments¶
- Land-lease estates (Bangplee, Lat Krabang, Lamphun): T1 invalid (tenants own buildings); methodology rebalances toward T2, T4A, T4B-DC, T6W. Phase 0B adjusts.
- Coastal estates (LC, MTP, MTP Port, Songkhla): C4 corrosion premium applies (AUDIT-002); marine-grade premium in CAPEX
- Northern estates (Phichit, Lamphun): lower P50 yield (1,292–1,372); smaller building footprint; T2-heavy envelope
- Newer estates (Smart Park, Kaeng Khoi): less mature tenant base; lower LOI conversion expected; longer Phase 0B
- Older estates (Bang Chan): building age concerns; ROOF-001 fail rate higher; reserve typology critical
E.6.3 Critical-path risks¶
- IEAT data delivery delays (E.2.1) → schedule pushes back by ~4–6 weeks per significant gap
- LOI campaign slower than methodology assumes (E.4.6) → may need IC submission deferral
- KTB IE finds material methodology issue → re-work loop; ~4–8 weeks lost
- EIA addendum not approved on first submission → ~6–12 weeks for revision
Methodology assumes 12-month timeline with reasonable execution; estate-specific adjustments add or subtract 1–3 months typically.
E.7 Common failure modes and escape hatches¶
E.7.1 Tenant consent below threshold¶
If the LOI campaign converts < 70% of Tier-1 candidates by anchor-attributed CAPEX: - Activate reserve typology promotion (T1X / T2X / T6X) - Re-attribute affected segments (IEAT-direct where possible) - Down-size envelope; revise IC paper - If reserve insufficient: defer IC submission until alternate path identified
The LC Tenant_Consent_Sensitivity (Thai Summit cluster out → 1.04× DSCR / 11.4% IRR / BREACH) is the methodology's stress case. Concentration in any single Tier-1 cluster > 20% of envelope is a risk flag.
E.7.2 ROOF-001 fail rate higher than expected¶
If > 25% of T1 candidates fail structural/ACM: - Promote T1X reserve where available - Investigate systematic issue (estate-wide building-age problem) - Re-allocate to T2 or T4A if structural unfeasibility is systemic - If unrecoverable: IC submission deferred until alternate path identified
E.7.3 IEAT concession amendment required¶
If estate-specific terms require concession amendment (e.g., new T6W canal segments require canal-use rights): - Pause Phase 0B; IEAT legal engagement - Methodology recommends parallel-track: continue Phase 0B work on unaffected segments while amendment is pursued - Amendment timeline typically 6–12 weeks
E.7.4 PEA hosting capacity exceeded¶
Rare in BTM-only deployment, but possible if estate envelope is grid-export hybrid: - Reduce export-permitted segment kWp - Re-balance toward BTM-only - Or: BESS sizing to absorb excess generation - Methodology should re-validate AUDIT-003 (PEA hosting capacity ceiling) per estate
E.7.5 EIA gating event¶
If EIA addendum requires upgrade to full new EIA: - 6–12 months added to timeline - Phase 0B paused; methodology recommends downsizing scope to fit existing EIA boundaries while new EIA proceeds - Communicate timeline change to IEAT and Fund I LPs early
E.7.6 KTB IE material methodology issue¶
If KTB IE finds methodology issue (e.g., yield convention, debt structure assumption, ESA structure): - Engage IE in direct dialogue - Methodology revision (per Part F change control) if IE position is correct - Re-issue IC paper and financial model with revised assumptions - Re-submission timeline: 4–8 weeks typical
E.8 Reviewer checklist (the actual sign-offs)¶
E.8.1 Steven Rubinyi (COO) — Process and methodology¶
Steven signs off on:
- Methodology compliance (every section of Part A–D applied)
- Phase 0A and Phase 0B deliverables complete
- Pre-IC reviewer-checklist completed
- Financial model cross-checked against methodology canonical
- AUDIT register status reviewed; no critical (≥ 50 bps IRR) gaps unaddressed
- Documentation in methodology-package/{estate_code}/ complete
E.8.2 Kwan Suddhi-Dhamakit (Thailand Director) — In-country execution¶
Kwan signs off on: - Tenant LOI campaign target met (≥ 70% Tier-1 by anchor-attributed CAPEX) - IEAT JV term sheet executed for the specific estate - All regulatory clearances in hand (BOI, EIA, PEA hosting, IEAT compliance) - IEAT counterparty relationship status (no pending disputes; engineering office responsive) - Local Phase 0 vendors performing satisfactorily
E.8.3 Marc Forni (CEO) — Investment thesis and Fund I alignment¶
Marc signs off on: - Investment thesis (returns, IRR, payback aligned with Fund I LP expectations) - IEAT relationship status (concession secure; no pending negotiation issues) - Cross-estate sequencing (this estate's timing aligns with pipeline rhythm) - Final go/no-go decision
E.8.4 Benedikt Signer (CRO) — Risk and AUDIT register¶
Benedikt signs off on: - Risk register adequate (all material risks identified with mitigations) - AUDIT register status (no items >50 bps IRR unresolved) - Insurance coverage adequate (property, BI, liability) - Concentration risks within thresholds - Stress scenarios produced and reviewed
E.8.5 Jin Yong (CFO) — Financial structure¶
Jin Yong signs off on: - Financial model construction (per E.5.3) - KTB initial response to debt sizing (in-principle approval at minimum) - Equity sources confirmed (Fund I commitment + IEAT JV equity) - Sources/uses table balanced - DSCR/LLCR covenants modeled correctly
E.8.6 Chandra Sinha (Head of Carbon) — Carbon (if applicable)¶
For estates where carbon is in base case (BP and others; not LC): - GS PoA registration plan - T-VER fall-back - Carbon revenue attribution per ESA structure - KTB ERPA structure decision (Broker vs Underwriting)
E.8.7 Sign-off process¶
Sign-offs filed in methodology-package/{estate_code}/IC_Signoffs.md:
- Each reviewer's name + date + signature line
- Items reviewed + status (Pass / Pass-with-condition / Fail)
- Conditions, if any, with closure plan
- IC submission can proceed when all five sign-offs are Pass or Pass-with-condition (no Fail status)
E.9 Acknowledged Part E gaps¶
- EIM template not yet documented — Part E references EIM (Estate Intake Memo) format but template not yet locked; first BP intake exercise will define it
- Phase 0 budget benchmark variance — $80–120K range; some estates (smaller, simpler) may run lower; some (larger, complex) may run higher; methodology should refine after BP and 1–2 more
- Sign-off escalation protocol — if reviewer disagrees with team; escalation to IC (Investment Committee) not yet documented
- Land-lease estate adjustments — Bangplee / Lat Krabang / Lamphun need specific runbook adjustments (T1 invalid); methodology recognises but doesn't yet specify the rebalancing protocol
- Cross-estate scheduling — methodology assumes single-estate Phase 0 in sequence; in practice 2–3 estates may run in parallel; resource constraints not yet addressed in runbook
- EEC vs non-EEC bifurcation — 13-yr BOI EEC enhancement is upside; per-estate eligibility determination not yet runbook-canonical
- Phase 0 vendor management — vendor performance tracking, dispute resolution, alternate vendor list not yet documented
- LOI campaign metrics — methodology assumes 70%+ Tier-1 conversion; conversion rate evidence base is just LC (12 of 12); BP and subsequent estates will refine
These gaps are tracked in the audit register R3 v0.3 and folded into the v1.1 work plan (where applicable) or deferred to v1.2.
E.10 References¶
- NC-IC-LC-001 IC Paper v1.1 (28 April 2026) — canonical IC deliverable template
- NC-FM-LC-001 Laem Chabang Financial Model v1.0 — canonical financial model template
- NC-IS-LC-001 LC Investment Segment Register v1.0 — canonical Phase 0B output template
- NC-WP-LC-001 Phase 0 Work Plan v1.0 — Phase 0 procurement schedule template
- NC-PR-LC-001 Procurement SOWs v1.0 — five canonical procurement SOWs (LOI, ROOF-001, PEA, EIA, KTB IE)
- NC-MN-001-R3_audit_v0_3 — live audit register
- Memory edits 1–30 (per
memory_user_edits view12 May 2026) - NC-METH-001 v1.1.0 Part A — framing
- NC-METH-001 v1.1.0 Part B — pipeline
- NC-METH-001 v1.1.0-revA Part C — typologies
- NC-METH-001 v1.1.0 Part D — cross-cutting modules
End of Part E v1.1.0.