Will FRMI publicly disclose its specific nuclear reactor design by December 31, 2026?

The NRC COLA acceptance implies that reactor design specifications were submitted to the regulator. As the NRC review progresses and RAIs are issued, the reactor technology will likely become part of the public docket. Additionally, the committee noted that reactor design certification is required before COLA approval — this process typically involves public documentation. With the NRC review actively proceeding and the company seeking MUFG financing (which banks would require reactor technology details), the information is likely to emerge through regulatory channels even if FRMI doesn't voluntarily disclose. However, the NRC could designate certain information as proprietary/confidential, limiting public disclosure.

The committee could not resolve whether non-disclosure reflects strategic secrecy or unresolved technology selection. If it's strategic, FRMI has incentive to maintain opacity as long as possible. If it's indecision, the timeline for resolution is unpredictable. The NRC process creates pressure toward disclosure, but the question asks about public disclosure through ANY channel. The resolution criteria are broad (SEC filings, press releases, investor presentations, NRC documents), which increases probability. However, NRC COLA reviews can proceed for extended periods before reactor-specific details are publicly released. I assess this as genuinely uncertain — coin-flip territory.

Multiple catalysts could force disclosure: (1) NRC RAIs becoming part of public docket, (2) investor/analyst pressure as the company matures as a public entity, (3) competitive dynamics requiring FRMI to differentiate its technology, (4) potential tenant due diligence requiring technology details. The company has been public for less than a year; as it conducts earnings calls, files its first 10-K, and engages institutional investors, the pressure to disclose will mount. Additionally, the groundbreak target of July 2026 would require knowing what they're building. I lean slightly above 50%.

This is genuinely uncertain. On one hand, the NRC process, investor pressure, and MUFG financing all push toward disclosure. On the other hand, FRMI has deliberately avoided disclosure to date despite being a public company — suggesting either strategic intent or a genuine gap. The NRC application was accepted without public reactor design disclosure, proving it's possible to proceed without it. If FRMI's groundbreaking proceeds in July 2026, they'll need to have finalized the design, but could still avoid public disclosure. Slight lean toward YES based on the broad resolution criteria and multiple pressure points.

I weight the company's demonstrated ability and willingness to withhold this information heavily. FRMI went through an IPO, S-11 registration, multiple 8-Ks, and a 10-Q without disclosing the reactor design. This is a deliberate choice, not an oversight. The NRC review process could force disclosure through public docket documents, but the NRC also honors proprietary information requests. The company may maintain opacity through 2026 if it serves their strategic interest. I lean slightly below 50%.

The accumulation of disclosure pressure over the next 9 months tips the probability slightly above 50%. The first 10-K filing, potential earnings calls, institutional investor engagement, NRC RAI responses, and the July 2026 groundbreak target all create disclosure opportunities. Even if FRMI resists voluntary disclosure, the NRC public docket for the COLA review will likely contain reactor-specific information as the review progresses. The broadly defined resolution criteria capture any of these channels.

Genuinely uncertain. NRC process and investor pressure favor disclosure; company's deliberate opacity to date suggests they may resist. Coin-flip territory.

Broad resolution criteria tip slightly toward YES. NRC COLA review, first 10-K filing, investor presentations, and groundbreak target all create disclosure opportunities over 9 months. Slight lean toward YES.

Company has deliberately avoided disclosure through multiple filing cycles. This pattern may continue. NRC could force disclosure but also accommodates proprietary information requests. Near coin-flip, slight lean toward NO.