The evidence up to the point was that, for cost cutting and knowledge sharing, it's better for people to be closer together with consolidation of common stuff. Spooky just pointed out they had teams for each of their markets in different locations. That's unusually isolated and just by what area they compete in. Why would they go out of their way to do that?
I'm also interested in seeing more specific evidence but initial data suggest IBM avoided obvious, cost-effective choice for isolating teams by market segment in expensive ways. That already looks bad somehow.
It's a big leap to go from suspecting nefarious motives to "definitely". It could be anything from lower cost of land and living expenses to executives thought it would be a good place to raise kids. Or it could be that IBM thought it would try a "Skunk Works" type operation that was deliberately cut off from the rest of the company - a setup made famous by Kelly Johnson at Lockheed.
Generally, when someone makes a claim of something to be true, it's up to them to be able to defend it with evidence. It's not incumbent on others to research it for them. For example, if I posted here "someone made a car that runs on water!", people would legitimately expect me to provide a cite.
Besides, one can't prove a negative. If you research cars that run on water, and don't find any, that doesn't prove that they don't exist. I could just say you didn't look in the right place, and you should try harder.
I'm also interested in seeing more specific evidence but initial data suggest IBM avoided obvious, cost-effective choice for isolating teams by market segment in expensive ways. That already looks bad somehow.