The provided evidence snippets do not contain the specific report from The Wall Street Journal stating that OpenAI missed revenue/user growth estimates and questioned its data center spending plans. The evidence provided for this claim is generic or unrelated to the specific financial reporting mentioned in the claim.

The evidence mentions cost-cutting (e.g., cutting Sora) and the board scrutinizing plans, but it does not contain a direct report stating that Sarah Friar is working with executives to clamp down on costs *because* the board of directors is closely scrutinizing computing deals. The evidence is suggestive but lacks direct corroboration for the specific mechanism described.

One web search result mentions that chipmakers like NVIDIA and AMD received gains following Oracle's stock surge, and another mentions Broadcom falling. However, none of the provided evidence sources explicitly state that *shares of chipmakers and tech companies, such as Oracle, slumped* following the report; rather, the evidence shows mixed or positive reactions for some stocks.

The evidence provided for this claim is limited to general information about Oracle and OpenAI, but it does not contain the specific details of a '$300 billion five-year computing deal' signed by Oracle with OpenAI, nor confirmation of a pledge of billions from Nvidia. The claim appears to be based on external context not fully supported by the provided snippets.

The evidence provided for this claim is generic (OpenAI's mission, products) and does not contain any specific report detailing that OpenAI announced major changes to its partnership with Microsoft *this week*, nor does it confirm the $13 billion investment figure from 2019.