BucketWorksAI is a place to explore research, question assumptions and see useful work taking shape. The monitor brings that experiment into view through connected data, open questions and a visible record of what we ship.
The work evolves alongside the AI landscape and the people who explore it.
A presentation audit of retained research restores ownership dates and withholds unsupported valuation comparisons and competitive rankings.
Dates beside the value
Company details, tiers and peripheral context show valuation dates and bases. The May 6 percentage-change chart is withheld because its historical baselines and comparison periods are not established.
Cursor’s ownership source now shows its retained publication and inspection dates alongside the scope limits. This does not establish current corporate structure or consideration.
Remaining tier, scenario, memory-headline and peripheral assertions are qualified individually. Competitive scores are withheld pending a dated rubric and comparable evidence.
This is an editorial audit, not a new source inspection or current market-data refresh. Valuations, financial/model inputs and historical graphics are preserved.
Historical marks, comparable daily moves, competitive scoring, remaining contract terms and payment observations still need evidence before quantitative claims can be reinstated.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Google Cloud infrastructure evidence
OpenAI’s subprocessor disclosure supplies a primary source for the infrastructure relationship; commercial terms remain unresolved.
A provider listing with a defined scope
The relationship now links to OpenAI’s cloud-infrastructure listing. Its July 9 page update is kept separate from any contract signing or service start date.
Contracting entities, price, term, capacity, hardware, accepted delivery and payments remain unresolved. The listed processing countries do not establish usable capacity.
All 72 relationship records now have a source link. This is source coverage, not complete verification or a current payment audit. Financial totals, valuations and historical graphics are unchanged.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Name the investment vehicle.
The NVIDIA–xAI review distinguishes infrastructure-fund participation from the Series E announcement.
Follow the fund relationship
The investment link now identifies NVIDIA’s dated participation in VCI and the fund’s equipment lease to an xAI subsidiary. It does not represent a direct payment from NVIDIA to xAI.
The Series E announcement names NVIDIA but does not allocate its contribution or reconcile the round with VCI financing. The two announcement amounts are not added together.
NVIDIA’s individual fund contribution, ownership share, exact investment date and paid amounts remain undisclosed in the reviewed announcements.
The review does not establish current equipment delivery, lease performance or current ownership. Financial totals, valuations and historical graphics are unchanged.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
A plan. A platform. A delivered system.
The GPU relationship review distinguishes dated deployment reports, service availability and future infrastructure plans. Private financing marks retain their original basis.
Deployment does not prove priority
CoreWeave’s initial GB300 deployment replaces the unsupported priority-allocation label. Nebius’s Finland deployment is dated and separate from customer-specific contract capacity.
Azure’s production report, Google’s availability update and AWS’s service launch support narrower hardware descriptions. They do not disclose total procurement or supplier payments.
Oracle’s platform validation does not establish the hardware at specific Stargate sites. The Colossus expansion announcement remains a dated plan, without an inferred current GPU mix.
AMD’s initial 1GW belongs within its multi-generation 6GW agreement. Mistral’s infrastructure announcements leave its exact current GPU count unresolved.
Mistral’s reported valuation remains above €21B, with no USD conversion. SSI’s partnership notice supplies no new valuation; its historical mark and reported investment amount remain separately qualified.
Current allocations, preferential supply rights, accepted quantities, payments and current private-company ownership remain unresolved where stated. Dated issuer accounts are not independent operational audits.
The earlier OpenAI capacity source retains its September inspection date. Selected numeric inputs, historical graphics and payment-cycle qualification are unchanged; this pass does not establish complete or current verification of the whole dataset.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Name the investor. Trace the service.
The Harvey and Ambience review separates Startup Fund participation, model delivery and dated financing values.
The fund has its own identity
Startup Fund investment records now appear separately from company arrows and company relationship counts. Their evidence links stay continuous; no operating-company investment or cash flow is inferred.
Harvey’s model accounts name OpenAI, Anthropic and Google alongside dated Azure, Bedrock and Vertex delivery routes. Removed the unsupported inference that multi-model support proves weak loyalty.
Harvey’s existing September valuation now has a fresh issuer-source inspection. Ambience’s fund participation is documented across two rounds; its secondary-reported valuation retains its historical date and earlier inspection.
Exact investing vehicles, current ownership, individual allocations and later participation remain unresolved. An investor omitted from a later announcement is not proven to have exited.
Model availability does not establish workload share, exclusivity or payments. Historical graphics and numeric inputs are unchanged; fund references do not create operating-company cash cycles.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
A holding needs its basis.
The NVIDIA–CoreWeave and NVIDIA–Nebius follow-up separates dated holdings, issuer-reported funding and warrant-inclusive beneficial ownership.
A later CoreWeave holding
NVIDIA reports 47,213,353 Class A shares as of June 30. This adds a later dated observation beyond the January holding carried into the April proxy.
CoreWeave’s June 30 outstanding counts are rounded to millions. Exact July counts have a different date. The historical graphic remains dated; no current percentage is calculated.
Issuer reports support Q1 funding of the $2B pre-funded warrant investment. First-half proceeds include that funding; they are not a second raise. Funding does not establish exercise.
The July filing’s 9.3% includes warrant-underlying shares within a 60-day window. It does not prove exercise, issued shares or total voting power. June directly held shares retain a separate basis.
Current holdings, later warrant exercise and current voting power remain unresolved. Passing an exercise eligibility date is not evidence of exercise.
Historical graphics and snapshots remain dated to their original reviews. Financial totals and model inputs are unchanged; this follow-up does not establish traced payments.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Different commitments. Different milestones.
The Nscale/Figure review separates funding stages, future compute, technology use and reported fleet deployments.
Compute and equity have separate terms
Figure’s $3.5B compute base, intention to expand above $6B and Nscale’s separate investment retain their own limits. Initial capacity is targeted for H2 2027; no current delivery or investment closing is inferred.
NVIDIA’s dated Series B/C participation is distinct from Nscale’s newer convertible. Its additional $1B commitment is inside the $3.36B headline and expected to fund in November.
Figure’s Series B names Microsoft and NVIDIA; Series C names NVIDIA and describes committed capital. These records do not establish individual contributions or current ownership.
Replaced the generic GR00T claim and predictive demand wording with named NVIDIA simulation tools and their limits. Direct hardware economics remain unresolved.
Nscale’s October deployment report is company-wide. Its monthly count is included in the annual total; neither establishes Microsoft contract completion or Figure delivery.
Funding receipts, current ownership, exact contracting subsidiaries, customer acceptance and payment terms remain unresolved within this review. Planned robot exploration is not a robot order.
Historical valuations, financial/model inputs and published graphics are preserved. Investment and service links alone do not establish circular payments.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
A purchase has a closing date.
Intel’s strategic financing review separates completed equity purchases, product plans and conditional government rights.
NVIDIA’s purchase completed
Intel’s closing report supports the $5B cash purchase and exact shares issued in December 2025. A completed investment does not establish a current ownership percentage.
The $2B share purchase closed in September 2025. Intel filings agree on the closing but differ on the agreement date; that discrepancy remains visible.
Cash received, escrow releases and conditional warrants remain separate. The June 2026 reporting period does not establish current voting ownership or later disbursements.
Current investor holdings matched to outstanding shares, later government disbursements and product milestones remain unresolved. Weighted-average EPS shares are not an ownership denominator.
Existing financial/model inputs, payment-cycle qualification and published graphics are preserved. Completed historical purchases are not added again as new financing.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Follow the service, not just the schedule.
SpaceX’s compute agreements and Cursor’s model supply now distinguish contract scope, delivery conditions, ownership and access notices.
October is a contract milestone
Google’s scheduled monthly fee does not prove that the full capacity was accepted or paid for. Delivery remedies differ from the later 90-day termination right.
The issuer’s roadshow describes the Anthropic agreement across both campuses. The prospectus qualifies the ramp fees and termination window. Earlier capacity announcements are not added again.
Cursor’s completed acquisition remains supported by its August announcement. Its current documentation still lists third-party models; ownership alone does not establish exclusive model supply.
OpenAI’s inspected help page describes November 12 as proposed, with final confirmation pending. Bundled model supply and separate account-based access are different relationships.
Current contract amendments, executing affiliates, accepted compute capacity, actual payments and final model-access changes remain unresolved. Documentation is not an account-level service test.
Financial totals, payment-cycle qualification and published graphics are preserved. Research inspection dates do not turn historical schedules into current operating evidence.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Separate cash, rights and capacity.
The NVIDIA–Corning review distinguishes paid warrant consideration, possible exercise proceeds, supply accounting and manufacturing plans.
Paid rights, possible proceeds
Corning records $500M paid for the pre-funded warrant. Full exercise of the traditional warrant at its stated price would add $2.7B. The roughly $3.2B headline is not all cash already received.
The Q2 filing records a $1B customer deposit and a $296M non-cash warrant offset. Their accounting link to NVIDIA is identified as an inference; the amounts are not added together.
Reuters reported a separate multibillion-dollar factory prepayment. Its full scope remains unreconciled with the filing’s deposit entry; it is distinct from the pre-funded warrant.
The planned optical-connectivity and fiber expansions use different measures. Three new plants remain a plan in this evidence; completed capacity, deliveries and pricing power are not established.
Later warrant exercise, voting ownership, full prepayment scope, current deposit balances and accepted deliveries remain unresolved. Missing evidence does not mean no activity.
Financial totals, payment-cycle qualification and published graphics are unchanged. New cash evidence for one instrument does not establish a complete payment cycle.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Separate the agreements. Date the milestones.
Meta’s infrastructure review separates earlier capacity in service, newer deployment plans and a dated warrant status.
Two Nebius agreements
The February letter reports the earlier Meta capacity tranches delivered and in service. The August letter still targets early 2027 for the second agreement. Dedicated and residual-capacity ceilings remain separate.
AMD reports no Meta warrant shares vested or exercisable as of June 27. That historical observation does not establish current ownership. The initial binding 1 GW purchase differs from the announced 6 GW ceiling.
NVIDIA’s account distinguishes Grace CPU deployment and adopted networking from later GPU scale and potential Vera CPU deployment. Contract value and customer-specific payments remain unresolved.
AWS’s Graviton scale is expressed in CPU cores. Broadcom’s MTIA commitment describes a phased rollout. Neither establishes a comparable accepted-capacity total or paid amount.
The existing CoreWeave option allocation and Scale proceeds split remain unresolved. This bounded follow-up supplies no new basis to amend those studies; their prior review dates and graphics are retained.
Customer acceptance, utilization, current balances and payments remain unresolved where stated. Financial totals and payment-cycle qualification are unchanged; missing evidence does not mean zero activity.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
From memory plans to product milestones.
Seven supplier relationships now distinguish partnership intent, named products, historical samples and unresolved payments.
Keep the product generation
Micron’s HBM4 shipment report and Samsung’s HBM4 production account identify NVIDIA Vera Rubin. AMD names Samsung and Micron for MI350 HBM3E. Product configurations and shipment quantities remain different measures.
The Samsung and SK hynix Stargate links now describe letters of intent. Projected wafer demand is not a contracted allocation and must not be counted twice.
The screen and copied brief distinguish the rule-derived score from measured confidence. Current sold-out horizons remain unestablished; the retained guaranty assumption does not establish paid financing.
Customer-specific quantities, realized prices, payments, current sold-out horizons and comparable observed price histories remain unresolved. Missing evidence does not establish zero activity.
Historical model inputs, calculations, financial totals and published graphics are preserved. New company evidence does not validate the model or establish forecasting accuracy.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Follow the obligation.
Project finance reviews distinguish campus leases, conditional guarantees, separate equity and the funds behind each venture.
A campus lease, with phases
Replaced the generic SB Energy power label with the dated PORTS-Pike lease and capacity plan. Optional capacity and future availability remain qualified.
NVIDIA’s support concerns defined lease and power obligations, with commencement, readiness and default conditions. It is not the entire campus cost or a payment already made.
The $1.5B NVIDIA investment announcement is now visible as context. Later offering terms, funding and settled ownership remain unresolved; no amount is added to totals.
The historical lease commitment, residual-value threshold and maximum-exposure measure are shown with their year-end basis. Components already inside an exposure measure must not be added again.
Blue Owl-managed funds are the Hyperion partner; BlackRock-managed funds appear in the separate El Paso announcement. Their managers and projects are not interchangeable.
Later balances, amendments, guarantee activation, payments and exact contracting affiliates remain unresolved. A guarantee ceiling is not an expected loss.
Selected financial totals, payment-cycle qualification and published graphics are unchanged. Fresh source inspections are dated October 6 UTC; this update uses the October 5 local editorial date.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
From commitment to delivery.
A cloud relationship review separates contract history, reported capacity milestones and unresolved payments.
CoreWeave’s different measures
Agreement ceilings, remaining performance obligations, backlog and revenue have different meanings. Microsoft’s historical share cannot identify anonymous customers in a later report.
The August 12 letter reports all Microsoft contract capacity tranches delivered. That milestone does not mean the service term is complete or all payments were received.
Oracle reports 75% of Abilene capacity delivered as of September. This is a site-level observation, without a stated denominator here, not 75% of the broader agreement.
Nscale’s four-country rollout includes earlier UK and Norway announcements. Microsoft’s amendment and AWS’s expansion do not establish current balances or payments.
The numerical cycle indicator now reads “Not established” until comparable payment evidence is linked across investments, services and hardware. The relationship map remains available.
Google Cloud–OpenAI contract evidence remains unresolved. NVIDIA’s residual-capacity order retains its earlier inspection date; subsequent performance is not established.
Missing payment evidence does not mean zero payments or zero cycles. No contract, investor or capacity amounts were added; published research graphics are unchanged.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Trace the overlap.
Anthropic’s capital and compute review separates funding rounds, investment ceilings, historical holdings and future capacity.
Earlier commitments inside later rounds
Series G includes portions of earlier Microsoft and NVIDIA investments. Series H includes $15B of previously committed hyperscaler investment, including $5B from Amazon. These are not independent additions.
Microsoft and NVIDIA’s equity ceilings sit alongside the Azure commitment and NVIDIA capacity plan. Individual funded balances, delivery and the detailed capacity mapping remain unresolved.
Historical non-voting shares do not establish a current percentage. The Google–Broadcom TPU agreement targets capacity starting in 2027; earlier capacity targets are not added to it.
The retained June 30 record remains $18B invested and up to $15B in a conditional facility. The separate AWS capacity targets do not establish delivered capacity.
Current ownership, individual funded balances, remaining obligations and delivered capacity remain unresolved. Missing evidence does not establish non-payment.
Dated holdings and unestablished investment disbursements are excluded from modeled cash cycles. No combined investor or capacity total is inferred; selected amounts and published graphics are unchanged.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Follow the funding stages.
An OpenAI investor review separates completed tranches, conditional commitments, historical ownership and warrant rights.
SoftBank’s completed follow-on
The October 1 disclosure reports completion of the $30B follow-on through Vision Fund 2, $64.6B invested cumulatively and approximately 13% ownership as of that date.
Added the announced $50B investment alongside the existing compute relationship: $15B initially and $35B subject to conditions. The funded balance remains unresolved.
Microsoft’s 27% remains historical. AMD’s warrant requires more than deployment milestones; neither a warrant ceiling nor a portfolio total establishes current ownership.
NVIDIA’s inspected quarterly disclosures do not establish its individual OpenAI funded balance. Historical holdings, cumulative investment and the unresolved commitment are excluded from modeled cash cycles.
Amazon and NVIDIA funded balances, Microsoft’s later stake and AMD warrant vesting/exercise remain unresolved in this bounded review. Missing evidence does not establish non-payment.
Dates and ownership bases differ. No combined investor total or ownership sum is inferred; selected commitment amounts and published graphics are unchanged.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
One deal. Different measures.
A third relationship study separates Scale’s announced valuation from Meta’s reported minority investment.
Separate the bases
Scale announced a valuation above $29B in June 2025. Meta’s FY2025 report describes a $13.80B minority investment closed that year. The study and graphics keep both dates and bases visible.
The proceeds split, precise ownership percentage, voting rights and later changes remain unresolved in this review. No ratio-derived stake or amount added to modeled totals.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
New capacity. An exercised option.
Corrected the Meta–CoreWeave interpretation using quarterly filing language already available in May.
Read what the commitment includes
The initial commitment of up to approximately $21B includes new capacity and an exercised existing option, with different capacity end dates. Updated graphics and link previews carry the qualification; earlier graphics remain labeled history.
Component amounts, overlap with the earlier ceiling, amendments and Meta-specific remaining obligations remain unresolved. No amount was added to modeled totals.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
One holding. Two measures.
The NVIDIA–CoreWeave study now separates historical Class A ownership from voting power, with the dates behind both.
Read the denominator
Added the April proxy’s historical comparison and a companion graphic in two formats. Its January holding and April share-count basis stay visible; later counts alone do not establish current ownership.
A later NVIDIA holding matched to outstanding shares and voting rights remains unresolved. No current percentage or financial total was added.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Research, ready to share.
Both relationship stories now include branded link previews and landscape or portrait images you can download.
Keep the context with the image
Each format retains its question, qualified figures, unresolved finding, review date and source-page link. Copy controls provide the story URL and a matching image description.
A dated visual record
Each downloadable graphic reflects the same dated research. The story keeps the supporting sources, qualifications and correction history together.
Follow the agreements through time.
A second relationship study connects the monitor to dated agreement history and a research graphic you can keep.
Meta–CoreWeave, reconciled in part
Added the earlier agreement ceiling and the issuer’s later description of a new commitment signed in March. The combined balance remains unresolved; no amount was added to modeled totals.
A research index and direct relationship links connect the map, evidence register and both stories. Each study keeps its own dated claims and downloadable graphic.
Still being reconciled
Agreement options, amendments and remaining obligations still need reconciliation. The two reports about the later commitment are grouped analytically, without a published contract identifier.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Clearer numbers. A stronger record.
Dated relationship reviews, clearer model labels and an update history you can follow.
Ownership with a date
Replaced the stale NVIDIA–CoreWeave percentage with the January investment announcement. Current ownership remains explicitly unresolved.
Restored the periods and qualification behind SpaceX compute-resale reporting from retained canon. This does not establish delivery or current revenue.
Memory scores now identify rule-derived outputs. Scenario percentages without a dated method are withheld. Flows distinguish native-currency exclusions and describe modeled graph cycles.
Amazon review
The selected Amazon publications were reviewed against the September baseline. The article content was unchanged, so the review did not produce a factual update.
Current NVIDIA–CoreWeave ownership and Meta/CoreWeave contract overlap.
Exact Scale economics; Corning equity/prepayment split and funding status.
Remaining relationship coverage, operating figures and historical model inputs.
These are known limits, not silent claims of completeness. Figures retain their own observation dates.
Explore the connected landscape.
The PWORKS visual system and guided journey reached production alongside selected data updates.
An interactive way in
Nine guided stops connect the map, company records, models and evidence. Pastel highlights, keyboard focus and an orange tour invitation support exploration.
Dated company values
Refreshed selected market caps and financing marks; Meta displays approximately $1.82T as of September 28. Native-currency and non-priced cases retain explicit qualifications.
Separated the Meta and Samsung nodes and aligned monitor/evidence typography, controls and navigation.
Read the dates with the numbers.
Publication, event, inspection and release dates answer different questions. A newly reviewed page does not make every figure current. Company valuations, contract ceilings and model scores use different bases.
This site presents reviewed snapshots, not live updates. The correction tool prepares a local draft; it does not send a report.