What does the available evidence establish about progress towards delivery, and what does it leave unresolved?
Three European evidence files show why construction, electrical permission, environmental assessment and phase-specific permits need to be read separately before drawing conclusions about delivery.
Gromstul, Microsoft evidence at Middenmeer and Hepokorpi are an initial selected cohort, not representative global coverage or a ranking. Evidence keeps its original dates. This briefing is an original interpretation of existing published observations, not fresh reporting on current conditions.
Read the step, the scope and the date together
ComputeFinder interpretation: These files support a narrower conclusion than a single project status suggests: the evidence concerns different steps, dates and physical scopes. A later permission or notice cannot refresh an older construction or operating observation. The next useful research task is the missing link in each case, rather than a larger headline capacity total.
For Gromstul, the missing bridge is between a scoped electrical permission and evidence of what has actually been energised or commissioned. At Middenmeer, even the physical association between an existing record and an expansion notice is unresolved. At Hepokorpi, a phase 3 permit and reporting about earlier phases must be kept distinct. These are different research questions, so one stage ranking would obscure rather than resolve them.
The evidence supports investigating these questions. It does not answer them by implication.
Three evidence positions, three different next questions
Selected project evidence, with historical dates and limits retained
The existing record retains a Building 1 construction observation from December 2025. The separately reviewed NVE case lists electrical-installation permission dated 28 August 2026; another page for that case names two permitted 132 kV line spans. These listings do not update the old building-stage observation or establish completed electrical work.
The NVE listing identifies two permitted 132 kV line scopes. Seek separately dated evidence for their construction and energisation, the relevant building, remaining consents and commissioning.
The existing record has a historical operating observation dated 23 June 2022. The 30 December 2025 notice records MER preparation for a proposed expansion. Neither establishes the expansion as operating, permitted today or physically identical to the older record.
Resolve the project and address association before comparing stages. Inspect later official case materials to establish whether a subsequent permit decision exists; the MER-intent notice is not that decision.
The existing announcement records a phase 3 building-permit decision on 11 June 2026. The retained catalogue construction label and wider programme account do not establish that phase 3 is built or that the campus is operating now.
The Finnish environment administration lists a reasoned conclusion for the Espoo project environmental assessment dated 4 June 2024. Keep this historical listing separate from the June 2026 phase 3 building permit. Inspect the underlying conclusion, compare it with the city decision linked from the catalogue record, and establish which conditions concern the relevant phase before seeking later construction, commissioning and service evidence.
What remains unestablished: These selected observations do not establish current usable capacity, completion probabilities, market-wide delivery pace, net local benefit or which project is furthest ahead.
Ask what would turn the evidence into a usable answer
Identify the subject. Which project, building or phase does the source concern? Resolve identity before joining observations.
State what the dated source establishes. Keep a notice, permission, construction report, commissioning observation and access offer distinct.
Name the missing dependency. Ask for evidence of the next consequential step, including whether it should proceed, change or pause.
Check consequences as well as progress. Establish local costs, commitments, participation and delivered outcomes from suitable evidence.
Verify the route to use. Investigate service, allocation and eligibility evidence before treating physical infrastructure as available compute.
This is a reading method, not a universal project schedule or a prediction that every project will advance. Reusing existing capacity, changing a proposal or deciding against an unsupported build can also be a useful result.
Follow the observations behind this interpretation
NVE: Gromstul electrical-installation case
NVE lists the Gromstul electrical-installation case as licence granted, dated 28 August 2026, and says permission was given to WS Computing AS for electrical installations linked to the data centre in Skien.
Scope: NVE case status for electrical installations linked to the project; not all campus consents or energisation.
Event-date scope: Date listed against this licence-granted case status, not a new campus-stage observation
Source publication
Not established
Source update
Not established
Event or decision
28 August 2026
Existing recorded check
17 October 2026
Evidence basis: reviewed source supplement. The existing exact-use independent review, not a new check in this edition.
Existing scoped independent review: 2026-10-17T17:31:59Z. This is not a new check of present conditions.
Source conditions and limits
The inspected evidence is the case HTML, not the underlying decision PDF or attachments. Electrical-installation permission does not establish all campus consents, legal finality, a current comment or appeal window, completion, commissioning, current operation, capacity or available compute. WS Computing AS is the named permission recipient, not newly verified campus owner, operator or end user. Earlier campus facts, stage, capacity and source dates are unchanged; no building or phase is split or merged.
Source copyright retained; exact basic-fact use assessed only. Two minimal attributed basic case facts and ordinary unframed case link only. No source narrative, quotations, attachments, maps, drawings, images, contacts, tables or datasets reproduced or adapted. No open licence, public-domain status, endorsement, blanket domain clearance or recurring-monitoring grant. The inspected NVE open-data notice applies NLOD to api.nve.no data, not automatically this case HTML or attachments; no API data was acquired. No applicable express restriction was visible in the complete case and inspected notices; this is not proof that no broader terms exist. Reassess newly evidenced applicable conditions without a paraphrase workaround.
The retained fingerprint describes parsed evidence, not raw origin bytes or a complete source-body hash. No source retrieval is performed by this page.
NVE: Gromstul permitted 132 kV line scopes
NVE lists case 202607246 as licence granted, dated 28 August 2026. A separate page for the same case identifies two 132 kV line scopes in its title: Building 1 to Building 2, and Gromstul switch station to the data-centre transformer station.
Scope: The title identifies two permitted 132 kV line spans within the same case; not construction, energisation or commissioning.
Event-date scope: Date listed with the licence-granted case status, not source publication, construction, energisation or commissioning
Source publication
Not established
Source update
Not established
Event or decision
28 August 2026
Existing recorded check
25 October 2026
Evidence basis: reviewed source supplement. The existing exact-use independent review, not a new check in this edition.
Existing scoped independent review: 2026-10-25T16:32:51.701Z. This is not a new check of present conditions.
Source conditions and limits
This separate page is another scope view of case 202607246, not a distinct project event. Its title identifies permitted line spans; it does not establish that either link was built, energised or commissioned, or that every electrical work or consent is complete. It does not establish current operation, capacity or available compute. Existing project stage, capacity, construction, consent and source clocks remain unchanged.
Source copyright retained; exact basic-fact use assessed only. One minimal attributed case/title fact and ordinary unframed case link only. No source narrative, quotations, attachments, maps, drawings, images, contacts, tables or datasets reproduced or adapted. No open licence, public-domain status, endorsement, blanket domain clearance or recurring-monitoring grant. The earlier inspected NVE open-data notice applies NLOD to api.nve.no data, not automatically this case HTML or attachments. Existing source-use review was read but is not treated as blanket permission; the exact candidate was independently reviewed.
The retained fingerprint describes parsed evidence, not raw origin bytes or a complete source-body hash. No source retrieval is performed by this page.
A Noord-Holland notice published on 30 December 2025 records a MER preparation notification for Microsoft Datacenters Netherlands B.V.'s proposed AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 expansion at Westlanderweg 50, Middenmeer, case OD2025-0043382.
Scope: The proposed AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 expansion at Westlanderweg 50 only. Its physical association with the older record is not established.
Evidence basis: reviewed source supplement. The existing exact-use independent review, not a new check in this edition.
Existing scoped independent review: 2026-10-17T18:36:44Z. This is not a new check of present conditions.
Source conditions and limits
This supplement is locality/operator discovery context beside the older Microsoft Middenmeer record, not a verified physical-campus or phase association. AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 and Westlanderweg 50 are not matched to Westlanderweg 150, AMS13/14, AMS15/40 or Campus West in the separate coordination decision. The underlying case documents, NRD, PDFs, applications and later decisions were not inspected. This historic notice does not establish current permitting, legal finality, a current comment or appeal window, construction, operation, capacity or available compute. Earlier facility facts, stages, planning and source dates remain unchanged; no building or phase is split or merged.
Source copyright retained; exact basic-fact use assessed only. Two minimal attributed basic notice facts and ordinary unframed original link only, not source narrative translation, adaptation or legal advice. No quotations, applicant documents, attachments, maps, drawings, images, contacts, tables or datasets reproduced or adapted. No open licence, public-domain status, endorsement, blanket domain clearance or recurring-monitoring grant. The inspected KOOP CC0 notice is limited to its own website, not this provincial notice or third-party attachments. No express restriction on the bounded basic-fact/link use was visible in the inspected notice HTML; inaccessible Overheid help/reuse conditions remain uninspected, not permission inferred from absence. Reassess newly evidenced applicable conditions without a paraphrase workaround.
The retained fingerprint describes parsed evidence, not raw origin bytes or a complete source-body hash. No source retrieval is performed by this page.
The notice states that the MER procedure does not itself decide the environmental permit; that decision follows completion of the MER and submission of a permit application.
Scope: The notice describes the distinction between the MER procedure and a later permit decision; it is not a current legal-status assessment.
Evidence basis: reviewed source supplement. The existing exact-use independent review, not a new check in this edition.
Existing scoped independent review: 2026-10-17T18:36:44Z. This is not a new check of present conditions.
Source conditions and limits
This supplement is locality/operator discovery context beside the older Microsoft Middenmeer record, not a verified physical-campus or phase association. AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 and Westlanderweg 50 are not matched to Westlanderweg 150, AMS13/14, AMS15/40 or Campus West in the separate coordination decision. The underlying case documents, NRD, PDFs, applications and later decisions were not inspected. This historic notice does not establish current permitting, legal finality, a current comment or appeal window, construction, operation, capacity or available compute. Earlier facility facts, stages, planning and source dates remain unchanged; no building or phase is split or merged.
Source copyright retained; exact basic-fact use assessed only. Two minimal attributed basic notice facts and ordinary unframed original link only, not source narrative translation, adaptation or legal advice. No quotations, applicant documents, attachments, maps, drawings, images, contacts, tables or datasets reproduced or adapted. No open licence, public-domain status, endorsement, blanket domain clearance or recurring-monitoring grant. The inspected KOOP CC0 notice is limited to its own website, not this provincial notice or third-party attachments. No express restriction on the bounded basic-fact/link use was visible in the inspected notice HTML; inaccessible Overheid help/reuse conditions remain uninspected, not permission inferred from absence. Reassess newly evidenced applicable conditions without a paraphrase workaround.
The retained fingerprint describes parsed evidence, not raw origin bytes or a complete source-body hash. No source retrieval is performed by this page.
City of Espoo announcement via STT Info
On 11 June 2026 the Espoo environment and building board approved a phase 3 building permit for Microsoft 3465 Finland Oy and allowed work to begin before the permit is final.
Scope: The 11 June 2026 phase 3 building-permit account. It does not establish phase 3 construction, legal finality or current operation.
Evidence basis: historical published record. Reuses the published record. No fresh source retrieval or whole-record revalidation in this edition; an exact independent review timestamp is not stored in this record.
Source conditions and limits
Existing source conditions retained; no new source-content licence. Selected existing attributed fact and ordinary original link only. Third-party source material retains its terms. This evidence file creates no blanket reuse or recurring-monitoring permission.
Each Gromstul, Middenmeer and Hepokorpi file adds its historical context, explicit gaps and next watchpoints using this same shared evidence.
Use this for your question
Researching a project? Start with its scope and unresolved dependency, then inspect the original source.
Affected by a proposal? Use the community question guide and check the current official participation route.
Seeking compute? Use Find compute for access routes, rather than treating a planned project as an offer.