Project Red Team - Location Decision Engine

Location Decision Memo

Klamath Midpoint leads this comparison on the evidence in the pack. The ranking has not been shown to hold, so it is a provisional leader and not yet a site recommendation. It leads Bend South by 0.0375 on the 0-to-1 weighted scale this pack ranks on, where 1 is the best any candidate achieved on a component and 0 the worst. Confidence: a thin margin over the runner-up. Conditions: Run parcel-level utilities and wetland screen before acquisition.

Provisional leaderKlamath Midpoint
Confidencea thin margin over the runner-up
Release safetyrelease-safe on the candidate evidence; the ranking is not established
Decision safetynot decision-safe as a site recommendation; rank stability is not established
Candidates3
Provisional leaderCandidateBlocked or partial
Klamath MidpointBend SouthWeed Gateway
Where the candidate sites are.

Ranked Locations

RankCandidateStatusScoreConditions
1Klamath Midpointevaluated0.7180Run parcel-level utilities and wetland screen before acquisition.
2Bend Southevaluated0.6805Test whether higher local capture is displacement rather than new demand.
3Weed Gatewayevaluated0.5350Confirm California entitlement path before public release.

Why This Candidate Leads On Current Evidence

On the components these two share, Net new capture puts Klamath Midpoint 0.0600 ahead of Bend South and Entitlement readiness a further 0.0300; Regional access puts it 0.0425 behind and Fiscal readiness a further 0.0100. The Regional access gap on its own is wider than the 0.0375 margin, so the lead holds only because the differences running the other way are larger together. Those differences are the whole margin: the two candidates are scored on the same components and on nothing else. The Consequence column below reads each component on its own rather than against the runner-up, so a component it describes as increasing rank can still be one this candidate trails on.

ComponentValueUnitScore (0-1, higher is better)Weight (share of the total, sums to 1)TierSourceConsequence
Regional access0.75score0.750.25declareddemo corridor screenincreases rank because it reaches both north and south demand pools
Net new capture0.7share0.70.3declareddemo trade-area screenincreases rank because capture is less purely local displacement
Fiscal readiness0.69score0.690.2declareddemo fiscal screensupports rank because tax and service geography is legible
Entitlement readiness0.73score0.730.25declareddemo regulatory screensupports rank subject to parcel-level confirmation

Score rates this component for this candidate on a 0-to-1 scale where 1 is the best any candidate achieved and 0 the worst; it is a ranking aid calibrated against the other candidates in this comparison and against nothing outside it. Weight is that component's share of the total, and the weights sum to 1.

What Could Change The Answer

Not Established

What This Pack Can Still Be Used For

Each candidate's component values, units, evidence tiers and sources are readings of that site, and they hold whatever the order turns out to be; so do the conditions and blockers recorded against a candidate. The Score column does not travel with them: it is calibrated against the other candidates in this comparison, so it moves when the ranking moves, and it is waiting on the same evidence the recommendation is.

What Due Diligence Comes Next

These are the steps this pack records, and it records no others: what the engine was told about each site, and the work the ranking itself is waiting on. The pack does not scope a diligence program and nothing here is a substitute for one. Bend South's conditions are here beside Klamath Midpoint's because the ranking is not established and 0.0375 on the same 0-to-1 scale separates them, so neither site has been ruled out.

This memo compares the candidate evidence carried by the Location Decision Engine. A full siting opinion requires each candidate to remain tied to its source data, model run, gates, and reviewer trace.