Every gap we're chasing on this site, in the open. Each lead is unverified inference until a source corroborates it — and every one traces to the corpus-completeness audit or a working hypothesis. Pick one up, answer it, or bring the document that closes it.
Item 4 of the BOSC public-records request — the projected tax-revenue impact and public-ROI inputs and assumptions — is held by county legal counsel under R.C. 149.43 and the §9.66(D) data-center exemption. Not produced.
The final air permit-to-install (eDoc 4132514, 2026-05-28) confirms the generator count and three-hall emission-unit grouping on a primary footing, but the per-engine ekW behind the disclosed 313 MW is redacted as trade secret.
The County withholds the BOSC-1A plan sets; the Soil & Water district shields the same documents again under R.C. 149.433 (infrastructure records) and R.C. 1333.61 (trade secret — “water and wastewater usage for a data center”), a ground that reaches even the plan-share links inside produced emails.
Item 16 (the CMS audit trail for the Sanitary Engineering pages) was answered “no records — we don't manage the website,” yet the WordPress /revisions endpoint returns HTTP 401 (gated, not 404). The version history exists; custody sits with the host.
The SWCD answered “no records” for the 0.7-acre forested wetland (DSW401251760W), yet a produced site inspection records that “the existing wetland was mitigated.” A produced record contradicts the answer.
The SWCD answered “no records” on tile / agricultural-drainage impact, but the 2026-06-05 inspection documents an east farm-tile diversion-swale failure (photo captioned “East farm tile bypass”).
The Hume / Shawnee forcemain's design capacity (item 9) is disclaimed by every county body — each points to Ohio EPA or the townships. Batch 2 produced the financing and the engineering contract, not the MGD figure.
Item 2 sought County communications with DoD or federal contractors (GDIT, GDLS) about the American Township facility and corridor. The county narrowed the ask and returned “no records.”
Item 19 sought County communications with EMH&T. None produced as to the Commissioners; the SWCD produced its own EMH&T emails, but the County's are still owed (it may supplement from Sanitary Engineering).
The funding source is verified — a GLRI subaward through Ohio EPA, OSU portion $327,450, term 2023–2025 — but the signed award instrument (deliverables, match, reporting) on the Maumee-headwater ag-runoff project is still owed.
Continuous flow and water-quality from three ISCO6712 sites would quantify the actual nutrient / flow reduction on Lost Creek (HUC12 041000070305). The load-reduction table is referenced on the captured SWCD page but not transcribed.
The Joint Systems Manufacturing Center (Lima Army Tank Plant) is co-located with the campus — documented geography under hypothesis H2 — but the campus's authorization posture (FedRAMP / DoD impact level) is undisclosed, so the causal link to the boom remains an inference.
The Ottawa's design low flow is about 0.2 cfs (cited); the campus's consumptive cooling loss is the keystone of hypothesis H1. The measured draw against that 7Q10 is predicted evidence the record still needs to close end to end.
The corpus holds a **secondary** Allen SWCD summary of a \$650,000 ag-runoff retention/treatment grant (Project `ALLENSWCD-FDFARM22`) on **Lost Creek HUC12 041000070305** (a Maumee headwater 2.7 mi east of I-75) — baseline nutrient-burden context for the hydrology axis. The funding source is verified (GLRI subaward via Ohio EPA, OSU portion \$327,450, 2023-2025), but the primary instruments are not in hand. ### Scope — documents still owed (see audit §2 table) - **Grant agreement / award instrument** — the signed GLRI / Ohio EPA subaward (deliverables, match, reporting). Source: Ohio EPA GLRI files; Allen SWCD; PRR. - **OSU application & conceptual design** — engineering basis for the BMPs (berm/wetland/forebay/pump-vault; saturated buffer). Source: OSU FABE (Dr. V. Shedekar). - **Load-reduction estimate table** — referenced on the captured page ("table below") but **not transcribed** in `data/extracted/watershed/osu-lima-ag-runoff-treatment.capture.yaml`. Re-capture the full page / SWCD project file. - **OSU monitoring data** — continuous flow + water quality (3 sites, ISCO6712 samplers). ### Acceptance - Primary instrument(s) committed under `data/documents/watershed/` (or the load-reduction table transcribed into the existing capture YAML), with the audit §2 rows flipped to "in hand". Source: `data/extracted/legal/corpus-completeness-audit.md` §2; `docs/HYDROLOGY.md`.
Two outstanding clusters from the county PRR production tracker (cover letter 2026-06-05). Production is rolling ("every Friday"); these are the items to watch in subsequent batches. This is an external-dependency tracking issue, not an engineering task. ### Item 4 — Project BOSC cost-benefit analysis (WITHHELD) Cost-benefit analysis / projected tax-revenue impact / public-ROI inputs & assumptions — withheld "being reviewed by our legal counsel for compliance with R.C. 149.43 and R.C. 9.66." Watch for release in later productions. ### Items 5-15 — county wastewater works (DEFERRED to the Sanitary Engineer) BOSC pump-station/forcemain **RFP + bids**; permits **DSWPTI-260294** & **DSW-6756**; **Shawnee II Phase 2** (the request text characterizes this as 12.6 MGD; the produced batch-2 records — Res #220-24, 2026-06-12 — document the receiving plant's influent pump-station **firm** capacity expanding **15 → 25 MGD**) design; **MS Consultants forcemain feasibility** (Res #113-26 / #136-26); **1996 CWA consent decree**; **Cridersville WWTP** records. The largest, most case-relevant hole. Note the internal contradiction already documented: Res #113-26 / #136-26 sit in the Commissioners own minutes (`M021926.pdf:3`, `M022626.pdf:3`). Consider a fresh PRR directed to the Allen County Sanitary Engineer. ### Acceptance - Track each Friday production; as records land, ingest them (NPDES/EPA/plan kinds) and update `corpus-completeness-audit.md` §1. Source: `data/extracted/legal/corpus-completeness-audit.md` §1; `prr-mandamus/bosc-prr-production-2026-06-05.response-index.yaml`.
**Context.** In the Allen SWCD PRR production (merged in #142) the District answered **item 3** (wetland / floodplain / water-resource determinations) and **item 4** (tile / field-tile / agricultural-drainage system affected by construction) with *"no responsive records"* — each qualified *"unless your request also implicates the previously identified sets of plans"* (which it withheld). **Worth a second look.** The inspection forms the SWCD *did* produce speak directly to both subjects: - **Item 3 (wetland).** Inspections from **2025-12-08** onward record *"the existing wetland was mitigated."* The on-site isolated-wetland 401 permit **DSW401251760W** (issued 2025-08-12) and its **2025-08-18 Mitigation Purchase Agreement** are already in-corpus (`permits/3788677.epa.yaml`, `permits/3796349.epa.yaml`). - **Item 4 (tile drainage).** The **2026-06-05** inspection documents an **east farm-tile diversion swale** failure — *"the tile is no longer exposed and only bubbling up through soil"* — with a labeled photo (*"East farm tile bypass,"* bundle p9). **Follow-ups.** 1. Pin down the scope of the "no records" answers — do they exclude the produced inspection forms and/or the withheld plan sets? (The qualifier suggests the determinations may have been folded into the withheld plans.) 2. Pursue the determination record sets elsewhere: Ohio EPA's 401 / Isolated Wetland Permit file for **DSW401251760W** and pending **DSW401252260W** (applied 2025-12-09); Army Corps if a federal nexus exists; and the County Engineer / Sanitary tile-drainage & as-built records for item 4. 3. Roll the breached-tile + creek-west-of-site dewatering finding into the hydrology/discharge axis. **Refs.** - `data/extracted/legal/prr-mandamus/bosc-prr-production-2026-06-12-aswcd.response-index.yaml` — items 3 & 4 + findings `wetland-mitigated-vs-no-records`, `farm-tile-impact-vs-no-records` - `data/extracted/legal/corpus-completeness-audit.md` §1 (Allen SWCD production) - Outstanding-records trackin…
## Context Open question surfaced by the permit-vs-disturbance sequence reconstruction (#150 / #153), observation **`level2-401-after-clearing`** in [`bosc-site-permit-sequence.yaml`](../blob/main/data/extracted/legal/prr-mandamus/bosc-site-permit-sequence.yaml). ## The question Was the broader **Level-2** isolated-wetland fill at the BOSC site authorized before the fill area was disturbed — and what is its current disposition? ## What the records show - The narrow **Category-1** isolated wetlands (0.33 ac) *were* authorized first: DSW401251760W, granted **2025-08-12** (before disturbance) — in-corpus (`permits/3788677`, `/3796349`). - The **Level-2** application (DSW401252260W) was received **2025-12-09** — the day after the first inspection records clearing/grubbing underway — and Ohio EPA declared it **INCOMPLETE** on **2025-12-23** (no practicable on-site alternatives analysis "for the entire site"; the delineation covers ~358 ac). In-corpus: `permits/3949585`. - **The corpus contains no later disposition** of DSW401252260W (a grep finds only the 2025-12-23 incompleteness letter). ## Deliverable Acquire the subsequent Ohio EPA 401/Wetlands/Mitigation correspondence for **DSW401252260W**: was a revised application submitted, and was it **granted or denied** — when, and at what fill scope? Add the disposition event(s) to the chronology in `bosc-site-permit-sequence.yaml` and ingest the record under `data/extracted/permits/`. ## Source Ohio EPA DSW 401/Wetlands/Mitigation Section (the same Joe Loucek / Heather Allamon / Rachel Secrest contacts on the in-corpus letters); or the Bistrozzi-permits production set. Content-verify the date; no source bytes altered. Analysis, not a legal conclusion.
**Refines #33.** The issued PTI **P0138965** confirms the emission-unit **grouping** (P001–P114 in three groups of 38 + 36 cooling towers in three groups of 12 → **≈ three data halls**) but carries **no plot-plan attachment and no floor area**. So compute **Method 3** (`docs/COMPUTE.md`) stays the flagged-weak **land-area envelope**, not real floor area. **To get.** The **architectural site-plan sheets** (CI Design / WSP / EMH&T) showing the data-hall building footprints, or the permit's plot-plan attachment if one exists. The committed plan set is a single grading & storm sheet (`1A-C-3104`) showing only ancillary SSS/GPS buildings on piers — the data-hall footprints sit on sheets not in hand. **Acceptance.** - Data-hall floor area documented from a primary source; Method 3 re-grounded from land-area envelope to floor area in `docs/COMPUTE.md` + `watermark.facility`. **Refs.** `corpus-completeness-audit.md` §4; `docs/COMPUTE.md`; #33.
Surfaced by the cross-production referral map (**#151**, `legal/prr-mandamus/cross-production-referral-map.yaml`). With three producing bodies now on the record, the **corridor-level environmental** records are owned by **no county body** — each disclaims and points to the next: - **ASWCD item 6** — BOSC-1A forcemain NPDES / SWPPP / ESC → "Ohio EPA / Sanitary Eng" - **ASWCD item 8** — Shawnee II Phase 2 stormwater / ESC → "Ohio EPA / Sanitary Eng" - **ASWCD item 9** — Hume/Shawnee forcemain **MGD design capacity** → "Ohio EPA / Sanitary Eng" - **ASWCD item 7** — forcemain drainage / tile / wetland → "Sanitary Eng / **townships**" Batch 2 produced the **procurement / financing / resolution** layer of these projects but **not** their environmental-permit layer. **To get.** Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water (NPDES construction-stormwater / SWPPP / ESC for the forcemain corridors + Shawnee II Phase 2; the item-9 MGD design capacity). The **townships** (American / Shawnee) are **not yet a requested custodian** — a candidate next PRR target. **Refs.** `legal/prr-mandamus/cross-production-referral-map.yaml`; `corpus-completeness-audit.md` §1; #35.
PRR **item 16** asked for the CMS audit trail / edit history of the county **Sanitary Engineering** pages (2025-01-01→). The Commissioners answered "**No records… do not manage the county website**" — **contested**: - The Sanitary pages' WordPress `modified` dates fall **inside** the requested window. - The `/wp-json/wp/v2/.../revisions` endpoint returns **HTTP 401 (gated, not 404)** — the version history **exists**; custody simply sits with the **host** (AhelioTech / CorpComm-built site). **To get.** The page revision history from the **host** (or via a custody-directed request), and/or document the 401-gated-but-present finding as the standing rebuttal to the "no records" disclaimer. **Refs.** `legal/web-vendor-audit/allen-county-web-vendor-audit.md`, `allen-county-level-sites.md`; `corpus-completeness-audit.md` §1 (item 16).
**Follow-up to #703** (the raw image-source extraction path), now on `main`. #703 built the `.png/.jpg/.tif` read path but ran **no** live extraction — the path ships, nothing uses it yet. This is its first real use. ## Target `data/documents/lacrpc/meetings/20260120 CAC Agenda and Meeting Notice.jpg` — the one image-only source in the corpus (a Lima–Allen County Regional Planning Commission Citizens Advisory Committee agenda / meeting notice). Currently reference-only; the #703 path can now read it straight into the vision extractor (single image, no OCR hint). ## Scope - Run the live image extraction (`extract_document(doc, kind=…)` over the `.jpg`, via the new `_read_doc` image branch) → a reviewed artifact under `data/extracted/lacrpc/`. - **Open question — which kind/model.** This is a meeting agenda, not one of the six current doc kinds (deed/npdes/sos/epa/wetland/engineering). Decide before extracting: - map it to the LACRPC meetings/timeline layer (cf. `data/extracted/lacrpc/meetings/meeting-summaries.yaml`), or - add a light generic agenda/notice kind+model, or - capture it as a dated `TimelineEvent` source only. Prefer the smallest change that keeps the figure/text honest. - **Chain of custody:** the `.jpg` is immutable evidence — don't rename/alter the source byte. Record the canonical name + a content-verified date in the collection's alias manifest if one applies. - Validate the new extraction against `watermark.models` (`test_extracted_yaml_valid.py` must stay green). ## Why it's separate It runs the API (cost) and lands a **reviewed corpus artifact** — a deliberate, gated decision distinct from shipping the code path. Tag claims `[verified]` only against the extracted artifact once committed. ## Done when The LACRPC CAC agenda is a committed, schema-valid extraction under `data/extracted/lacrpc/`, sourced through the #703 image path, and (if it carries a date/parties) wired into the timeline/meetings layer.
Showing all 21 open leads. Closed leads move into the record →