Each gap below constrained the analysis in a named way; none was filled by invention. Where a gap materially affects a conclusion, the conclusion carries an 'inashanu estimate' label and the gap's number is cited.
Fifteen gaps in the public record, each with why it persists and how it constrains the analysis. None was filled by invention; where a gap affects a conclusion, the conclusion says so.
Each gap below constrained the analysis in a named way; none was filled by invention. Where a gap materially affects a conclusion, the conclusion carries an 'inashanu estimate' label and the gap's number is cited.
| # | Gap | Why it persists | How this report treats it |
|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | No audited operator market-share series by operational MW | DC Byte / Structure Research / C&W hold facility data behind paywalls | All share figures (Section 07) are triangulations; we show method and ranges |
| G2 | ResearchAndMarkets facility-level database paywalled | 145 existing / 48 upcoming facilities with rack pricing; public summary only | Retail rack pricing absent from Section 08; flagged in text |
| G3 | Knight Frank 2025 AU chapter retrievable only in poor OCR | '4.5 GW built / ~15 GW pipeline' unverifiable against original | Figures shown as UNVERIFIED wherever cited; excluded from scenario anchors |
| G4 | IBISWorld full reports paywalled | Segment revenue, >5% company shares, 2025-30 forecasts unavailable | Section 02 uses public teasers only; no company-share claims from IBISWorld |
How these gaps are flagged elsewhere in the report
'inashanu estimate'
Operator-attributed
Single-company evidence
Data-gap register (continued): gaps G5-G8
| # | Gap | Why it persists | How this report treats it |
|---|---|---|---|
| G5 | Hyperscaler self-build capacity not disclosed | AWS/Google/Microsoft do not itemise AU MW; site figures are research estimates | Self-build rows shown as estimates; capacity totals carry the caveat |
| G6 | AirTrunk private post-Blackstone, no public financials | Deal multiple itself contested (21x vs ~87x) | Section 09 presents both multiples with denominators; REIT prospectus flagged as resolution |
| G7 | CDC detailed financials unavailable | Only Infratil quarterly valuation notes (DCF, 11.84% cost of equity, projections to 2040) | CDC economics limited to disclosed anchors (~A$2m/MW/yr; FY28 >=A$1bn) |
| G8 | Wholesale/hyperscale AU lease rates unpublished | CBRE US$140-215 covers 250-500 kW colocation only; CDC 555 MW pricing undisclosed | Section 08 uses colocation band + EBITDA anchors; no invented lease rates |
Tinted rows: G6 and G8, the two gaps most likely to close soon, both via the anticipated Singapore REIT prospectus (see the standing rule, p.75).
Disclosed figures available in place of the missing data (G6-G8)
21x vs ~87x
FY28 >=A$1bn
Data-gap register (continued): gaps G9-G15 and the standing rule for handling them
| # | Gap | Why it persists | How this report treats it |
|---|---|---|---|
| G9 | No official AU PUE/WUE series | Operator self-report only (MEL1 1.15); no NABERS-style mandatory disclosure yet | PUE figures attributed to operators; May 2026 Ministerial transparency expectation noted |
| G10 | AEMO connection-queue project detail not fully public | 44 GW request breakdown by project/NSP partially published only | Phantom-demand analysis kept at aggregate level |
| G11 | Water usage actuals not public | Sydney Water application data unavailable; 5.5 -> 17 GL is an industry estimate without named methodology | Water figures labelled as estimates; register cited wherever used |
| G12 | No published index for DC-suitable land | Emerging-precinct values (Marsden Park, Mamre Rd post-rezoning) anecdotal between major deals | Land analysis confined to PwC's 10 disclosed comparables + recompute flags |
| G13 | No capacity-based edge census | IMARC's 16.8% is a revenue estimate | Edge discussed qualitatively; no MW claims |
| G14 | No public AU construction cost book by fit-out level | Turner & Townsend global cost index AU cut is paywalled | Capex/MW derived only from disclosed project figures, method shown |
| G15 | No industry-wide contracted-to-billing conversion data | Only NEXTDC discloses (110.9 MW billing vs 244.8 MW contracted, FY25) | J-curve argument rests on NEXTDC micro-data, labelled as single-company evidence |
Standing rule
A gap is never filled with an unsourced number. If a figure cannot be traced to the evidence base, it either appears as an 'inashanu estimate' with method, or it does not appear. G6 (AirTrunk financials) and G8 (hyperscale lease rates) are the two gaps most likely to close soon, both via the anticipated Singapore REIT prospectus.
Related
- Why do Australian data centre market size estimates differ so much?
- How should these Australian data centre figures be read?
- What are the risks in Australian data centre investment?
- What sources support this Australian data centre research?
The full primer is published as an 85-page PDF (download) with the underlying market model as a workbook (download).
This page is one of 30 in Australian data centres: the research, indexed by the question each one answers, with the four pages where the published sources disagree set first.
The research is published by inashanu, a studio that produces fixed-scope market research for Australian private equity, priced and dated before work starts. The sample engagement is this primer in full.
This standard, on your question. Six fixed-price deliverables, A$14,000 to A$45,000 excluding GST, opening at the A$14,000 market map in 10 business days. State the decision and the date it has to be made; the written assessment of whether the evidence base will carry it follows within two business days and carries no charge. Request a brief assessment · the catalogue and its prices.