Karaya Group

Selected work · Evidence policy

Evidence, without breaching confidence.

Engagements are confidential. So the work here is shown as anonymized decision shapes and frameworks, not named cases. Nothing on this page identifies a client.

Discuss a decision See the methodology

Engagement shapes

How the decisions look, with the identity removed.

Each card describes the decision that was faced, the constraints that bound it, the principal's role, and the work product. Outcomes are described as a clearer decision or a retired risk, never as an invented number.

  • Capacity strategy
  • Compute cluster
  • Build-buy-lease comparison
Decision
An operator had to decide whether to build, buy, or lease capacity to meet a committed workload.
Constraints
Power availability and a fixed deadline narrowed what was realistic.
Role
The principal framed the decision, mapped the binding constraints, and compared the three routes against them.
Work product
A build-buy-lease comparison with the reasoning for each route shown.
Outcome
A clearer decision, made with the trade-offs on the table.

Location, counterparties, capacity figures, and timing are withheld.

  • Diligence
  • Infrastructure transaction
  • Risk register
Decision
An investor needed technical and commercial diligence on an infrastructure asset before committing.
Constraints
A short exclusivity window and incomplete vendor data set the pace.
Role
The principal ran the diligence, tested the technical claims, and named the risks that bore on price.
Work product
A diligence risk register, with each risk rated and explained.
Outcome
A retired risk on a claim that did not hold up under review.

The asset, the parties, the valuation, and the sector detail are withheld.

  • Capacity operations
  • GPU deployment
  • Constraint map
Decision
A team standing up a GPU deployment had to decide how far it could scale on its current site.
Constraints
Cooling headroom and power draw capped what the facility could carry.
Role
The principal mapped the facility, power, and cooling limits against the planned deployment.
Work product
A capacity constraint map showing where the deployment would bind first.
Outcome
A clearer decision on scope, taken before capital was stranded.

The operator, the site, the hardware, and the figures are withheld.

  • Site strategy
  • Region choice
  • Options comparison
Decision
An operator had to choose a region for capacity that would have to hold for years.
Constraints
Power cost, grid timelines, and policy exposure pulled in different directions.
Role
The principal set out the candidate regions and compared them against the constraints that would bind over time.
Work product
An options comparison with the long-term risks named for each region.
Outcome
A clearer decision, with the durable constraints separated from the temporary ones.

The regions, the operator, and the cost figures are withheld.

These are anonymized engagement shapes, not specific client cases.

Sample deliverables

The artifacts, described.

No screenshots, and no client data. These are descriptions of the kind of artifact a brief produces.

Build-buy-lease comparison

A side-by-side comparison of building, buying, and leasing capacity, with each route scored against the constraints that actually bind and the reasoning left visible.

Diligence risk register

A register that names each material risk in a transaction, rates it, and explains how it bears on the decision, so nothing sits buried in a footnote.

Capacity constraint map

A map of the facility, power, and cooling limits on a deployment, showing where scale binds first and what would have to change to move that limit.

Principal contribution

What the principal does directly.

The principal frames the decision, maps the constraints, and compares the options directly. The principal writes the recommendation and the risk register. There is no team behind the practice, so the work you read is the work the principal did.

Confidentiality

Why the specifics stay out.

The value of a brief is the client trusting the principal with detail they would not put in public. Naming a client, a site, or a number would break that trust, so those specifics stay out.

An NDA is available before any confidential material is shared. If you want to test whether the work fits your decision, the right place to do that is a scoped conversation, not a case study.

Bring the decision you actually have.

Tell Karaya what you are trying to decide. You will get a direct reply from the principal.

Discuss a decision