Project Red Team - reviewer pack

Location Decision Reviewer Pack

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 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 US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 by 0.2041 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 wide margin over the runner-up. Conditions: none specific to this candidate; the ones this comparison stands on are under Run Limits.

Release labelComparison-safe; no site recommendation

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

Provisional leaderUS-97 10-mile sweep mile 210

Rankingnot established

Candidates36

How To Read This Pack: the release label first, then the tier under every number, then what the pack refuses

Start with the release label above. It decides whether anything below may leave the room, and every section is written assuming you read it first.
The Score column is a weighted MEAN, not a total: each component's score times its weight, divided by the summed weight, which the column head states. If the weights do not sum to 1, the head says what they sum to.
The margin is the difference between the top two interval points' means, and Which Components Could Flip This Order decomposes it component by component. Those differences add up to the margin; if they do not, the pack is wrong and this is where it shows.
Every value carries a tier and a source in its own row. Read the tier before the value: a derived reading is computed from something else in this pack, an estimated one is modeled, and a measured one came from outside it.
Where the pack declines to answer, the refusal names what is withheld, why, what may still be used, what would clear it, and what may not be concluded. A refusal here is a finding, not a gap.
The candidates are interval points on a route line, not parcels. What These Candidates Are states the spacing and the geometry, and names the route receipts this pack does not carry.

Decision Rule

Candidates are grouped by status first, so a candidate that could not be evaluated ranks below one that could, whatever its score. Within a status, they are ordered by weighted score. The stated qualifying weighted score is above 0 on a 0-to-1 scale, which excludes nothing that was scored. No candidate here was ruled out by it.

Field	Value
Metric	Weighted score
Direction	above
Threshold	0
Rank by	Weighted score
Phase aggregation	Steady state annual

What These Candidates Are: points sampled along a route line, not parcels

Nobody proposed these 36 candidates. They were sampled along the supplied route polyline, and each one's name is its milepost: the candidate reading "mile 180" is the point 180 miles along that line. It is not an address, a parcel, or a property anyone has visited.

36 points along 347.1 miles of corridor: one every 10 miles from mile 0 to mile 340, and a final point at mile 347.1 where the route line ends (7.1 miles after the one before it).

An interval point is a screening position on a corridor. It is not a parcel selection, not a site anyone has inspected, and not an entitlement finding. Ranking these points says which stretches of the corridor are worth examining. It does not say where to build, and no ranking here survives contact with a title search, a zoning check, or a site visit.

The route line is a simplified polyline. A milepost on it locates a stretch of corridor rather than a point on the roadway, and distances along it are approximate.

What a reviewer would re-run against	What this pack states
Geometry the points were taken from	Simplified US-97 route control-point polyline derived from cached OpenStreetMap Overpass data
Number of interval points	36
Spacing	10 miles, and a final 7.1-mile step to the end of the route
Milepost range	0 to 347.1

Route provenance	What this pack carries
Route	US 97
Route geometry file	osm_39_50_-124_50_46_00_-117_00_7.geojson
Route file checksum	2f0174f76566260023010bdae5053d3b049e1675437320b74b70f9a5dd7c05bf
Geometry captured	2026-08-30T21:40:50Z
Simplification tolerance	0.2 miles
Route length	347.117 miles
Polyline contract	route_polyline.v1

The sweep records its own statement of what these points may be used for: "Interval points are corridor screening candidates, not parcel selections or entitlement findings." That is the author's limit rather than this renderer's, and it is printed here so the two can be held against each other.

Run Limits: what every reading in this pack assumes, stated once instead of on each row

These conditions are not properties of any one candidate. They constrain the run that produced all 36 of them, and the comparison above assumes every one of them holds. They are listed here rather than repeated in each row because a column that says the same thing in every cell stops being read, and what a reader then misses is a caveat rather than a duplicate.

This interval sweep re-solves the study by candidate using distance-proxy market costs and a stated unemployment rate; measured road routing, live BLS LAUS/OEWS refresh, repeated viability, payroll, robustness, and forecast-register sections are parked for the rerun-cache lift.
Candidate was re-solved through the study engine; rank stability propagation is still a separate gate.

Each condition above is still recorded against every interval point that carries it in the decision JSON sidecar, under that candidate's conditions. Nothing was dropped from the record; this section changes where a reader meets it, not what the pack holds.

Candidate Ranking

Rank	Candidate	Status	Score	Conditions	Warnings
1	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210	Evaluated	0.6895	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
2	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250	Evaluated	0.4854	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
3	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 70	Evaluated	0.4681	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
4	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 0	Evaluated	0.4615	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
5	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 10	Evaluated	0.4317	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
6	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 20	Evaluated	0.4132	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
7	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 220	Evaluated	0.4120	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
8	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 200	Evaluated	0.4103	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
9	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 60	Evaluated	0.4091	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
10	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 30	Evaluated	0.4013	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
11	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 40	Evaluated	0.3930	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
12	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 50	Evaluated	0.3920	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
13	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 80	Evaluated	0.3894	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
14	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 260	Evaluated	0.3778	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
15	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 90	Evaluated	0.3516	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
16	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 230	Evaluated	0.3493	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
17	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 100	Evaluated	0.3270	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
18	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 190	Evaluated	0.3242	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
19	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 240	Evaluated	0.3240	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
20	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 270	Evaluated	0.3042	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
21	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 160	Evaluated	0.2936	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
22	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 180	Evaluated	0.2920	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
23	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 170	Evaluated	0.2775	-	the best decay found, 1, is at the lower edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
24	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 280	Evaluated	0.2604	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
25	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 150	Evaluated	0.2485	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
26	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 290	Evaluated	0.2387	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
27	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 140	Evaluated	0.2230	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
28	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 300	Evaluated	0.2142	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
29	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 110	Evaluated	0.2101	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
30	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 130	Evaluated	0.2085	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
31	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 120	Evaluated	0.2049	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
32	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 310	Evaluated	0.1984	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
33	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 320	Evaluated	0.1856	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
34	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 330	Evaluated	0.1767	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
35	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 340	Evaluated	0.1715	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.
36	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 347	Evaluated	0.1680	-	the best decay found, 2.5, is at the upper edge of the candidate range 1-2.5. The optimum may lie outside it and the search was not allowed to look, so this is a censored result rather than a fitted one. Widen the candidates or state the range as a constraint the study accepted.

Candidate Score Components

On the components these two share, Total market capture puts US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 0.1468 ahead of US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 and Net new capture a further 0.0995; Annual output puts it 0.0385 behind and Self-cannibalization share a further 0.0037. 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.

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	392,024	dollars	0.004	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	2.863	jobs	0.004	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	173,483	weighted patrons	1	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	40,907	weighted patrons	1	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.764	share	0.004	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.055	share	0.952	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

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 relative rather than a share: the weights that carry a score total 1.3, and the candidate's score divides by that total.

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	531,245	dollars	0.171	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.88	jobs	0.171	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	83,292	weighted patrons	0.455	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	26,615	weighted patrons	0.63	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.68	share	0.171	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.047	share	1	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 70

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,214,237	dollars	0.989	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	8.869	jobs	0.989	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	24,805	weighted patrons	0.101	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	18,116	weighted patrons	0.411	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.27	share	0.989	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.15	share	0.328	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 0

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,223,555	dollars	1	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	8.937	jobs	1	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	17,558	weighted patrons	0.057	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	12,921	weighted patrons	0.276	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.264	share	1	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.073	share	0.832	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 10

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,165,827	dollars	0.931	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	8.515	jobs	0.931	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	16,220	weighted patrons	0.049	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	11,374	weighted patrons	0.236	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.299	share	0.931	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.075	share	0.82	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 20

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,126,614	dollars	0.884	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	8.229	jobs	0.884	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	15,703	weighted patrons	0.046	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	10,641	weighted patrons	0.217	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.322	share	0.884	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.078	share	0.799	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 220

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	442,062	dollars	0.064	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.229	jobs	0.064	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	80,122	weighted patrons	0.435	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	21,304	weighted patrons	0.493	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.734	share	0.064	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.061	share	0.914	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 200

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	415,301	dollars	0.032	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.033	jobs	0.032	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	85,010	weighted patrons	0.465	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	21,235	weighted patrons	0.491	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.75	share	0.032	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.064	share	0.891	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 60

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,113,818	dollars	0.869	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	8.135	jobs	0.869	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	18,951	weighted patrons	0.066	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	12,696	weighted patrons	0.271	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.33	share	0.869	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.118	share	0.537	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 30

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,100,905	dollars	0.853	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	8.041	jobs	0.853	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	15,541	weighted patrons	0.045	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	10,291	weighted patrons	0.208	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.338	share	0.853	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.082	share	0.771	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 40

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,081,149	dollars	0.829	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	7.897	jobs	0.829	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	15,825	weighted patrons	0.047	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	10,291	weighted patrons	0.208	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.35	share	0.829	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.089	share	0.729	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 50

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,078,118	dollars	0.826	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	7.874	jobs	0.826	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	16,717	weighted patrons	0.052	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	10,841	weighted patrons	0.223	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.352	share	0.826	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.1	share	0.658	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 80

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	1,049,162	dollars	0.791	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	7.663	jobs	0.791	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	19,383	weighted patrons	0.068	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	12,232	weighted patrons	0.259	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.369	share	0.791	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.117	share	0.545	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 260

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	509,767	dollars	0.145	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.723	jobs	0.145	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	58,518	weighted patrons	0.305	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	17,943	weighted patrons	0.406	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.693	share	0.145	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.049	share	0.988	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 90

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	946,438	dollars	0.668	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	6.913	jobs	0.668	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	17,711	weighted patrons	0.058	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	10,082	weighted patrons	0.203	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.431	share	0.668	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.1	share	0.654	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 230

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	500,682	dollars	0.134	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.657	jobs	0.134	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	53,747	weighted patrons	0.276	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	16,186	weighted patrons	0.361	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.699	share	0.134	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.061	share	0.911	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 100

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	868,261	dollars	0.574	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	6.342	jobs	0.574	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	17,335	weighted patrons	0.056	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	9,053	weighted patrons	0.176	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.478	share	0.574	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.091	share	0.716	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 190

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	457,273	dollars	0.082	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.34	jobs	0.082	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	53,351	weighted patrons	0.274	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	14,674	weighted patrons	0.322	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.725	share	0.082	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.065	share	0.885	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 240

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	558,300	dollars	0.203	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	4.078	jobs	0.203	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	40,088	weighted patrons	0.193	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	13,462	weighted patrons	0.29	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.664	share	0.203	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.061	share	0.91	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 270

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	487,760	dollars	0.119	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.563	jobs	0.119	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	41,827	weighted patrons	0.204	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	12,271	weighted patrons	0.26	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.707	share	0.119	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.051	share	0.976	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 160

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	388,742	dollars	0	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	2.839	jobs	0	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	54,941	weighted patrons	0.283	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	12,846	weighted patrons	0.274	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.766	share	0	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.068	share	0.866	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 180

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	495,500	dollars	0.128	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.619	jobs	0.128	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	39,668	weighted patrons	0.191	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	11,822	weighted patrons	0.248	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.702	share	0.128	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.066	share	0.876	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 170

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	535,531	dollars	0.176	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.911	jobs	0.176	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	31,451	weighted patrons	0.141	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	10,131	weighted patrons	0.204	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.678	share	0.176	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.067	share	0.871	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 280

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	478,500	dollars	0.108	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.495	jobs	0.108	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	31,090	weighted patrons	0.139	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	8,948	weighted patrons	0.174	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.712	share	0.108	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.052	share	0.969	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 150

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	407,685	dollars	0.023	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	2.978	jobs	0.023	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	39,436	weighted patrons	0.189	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	9,670	weighted patrons	0.192	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.755	share	0.023	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.074	share	0.826	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 290

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	479,575	dollars	0.109	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.503	jobs	0.109	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	25,090	weighted patrons	0.103	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	7,238	weighted patrons	0.129	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.712	share	0.109	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.053	share	0.964	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 140

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	437,502	dollars	0.058	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.195	jobs	0.058	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	29,720	weighted patrons	0.131	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	7,821	weighted patrons	0.145	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.737	share	0.058	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.084	share	0.761	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 300

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	471,188	dollars	0.099	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.441	jobs	0.099	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	19,327	weighted patrons	0.068	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	5,478	weighted patrons	0.084	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.717	share	0.099	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.054	share	0.958	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 110

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	699,032	dollars	0.372	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	5.106	jobs	0.372	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	16,711	weighted patrons	0.052	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	7,026	weighted patrons	0.124	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.58	share	0.372	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.2	share	0	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 130

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	486,988	dollars	0.118	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.557	jobs	0.118	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	22,929	weighted patrons	0.09	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	6,716	weighted patrons	0.116	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.707	share	0.118	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.103	share	0.638	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 120

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	568,209	dollars	0.215	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	4.15	jobs	0.215	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	18,855	weighted patrons	0.065	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	6,444	weighted patrons	0.109	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.658	share	0.215	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.138	share	0.41	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 310

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	464,015	dollars	0.09	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.389	jobs	0.09	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	15,724	weighted patrons	0.046	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	4,388	weighted patrons	0.056	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.721	share	0.09	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.055	share	0.953	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 320

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	461,195	dollars	0.087	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.369	jobs	0.087	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	12,498	weighted patrons	0.026	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	3,467	weighted patrons	0.032	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.723	share	0.087	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.055	share	0.948	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 330

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	460,644	dollars	0.086	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.364	jobs	0.086	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	10,138	weighted patrons	0.012	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	2,809	weighted patrons	0.015	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.723	share	0.086	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.056	share	0.943	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 340

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	457,102	dollars	0.082	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.339	jobs	0.082	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	9,067	weighted patrons	0.006	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	2,493	weighted patrons	0.007	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.725	share	0.082	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.057	share	0.941	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

US-97 10-mile sweep mile 347

Component	Value	Unit	Score (0-1, higher is better)	Weight (out of 1.3)	Tier	Source	Consequence
Annual output	457,167	dollars	0.082	0.3	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	increases rank when the candidate re-solve produces more annual output
Annual employment	3.339	jobs	0.082	0	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Study release quality	1	score	0.5	0.2	estimated	per-candidate study re-solve	reduces rank when the candidate re-solve is not publishable
Total market capture	8,117	weighted patrons	0	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when the site captures more demand
Net new capture	2,232	weighted patrons	0	0.35	derived	shared market solver	increases rank when captured demand is less displaced
Net displacement share	0.725	share	0.082	0	derived	shared market solver	reported for context; not used in rank because it moves with Annual output across the candidate set
Self-cannibalization share	0.057	share	0.938	0.1	derived	shared market solver	penalizes locations that relocate existing operator revenue

Sensitivity

Field	Value
Rank stability	Not established
Win probability	none recorded
Pairwise regret	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210: 0.0000; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250: 0.2042; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 70: 0.2214; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 0: 0.2280; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 10: 0.2579; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 20: 0.2763; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 220: 0.2776; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 200: 0.2793; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 60: 0.2804; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 30: 0.2883; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 40: 0.2965; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 50: 0.2975; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 80: 0.3002; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 260: 0.3117; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 90: 0.3379; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 230: 0.3402; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 100: 0.3625; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 190: 0.3653; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 240: 0.3655; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 270: 0.3854; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 160: 0.3959; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 180: 0.3976; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 170: 0.4121; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 280: 0.4292; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 150: 0.4410; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 290: 0.4509; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 140: 0.4665; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 300: 0.4753; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 110: 0.4795; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 130: 0.4811; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 120: 0.4847; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 310: 0.4911; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 320: 0.5040; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 330: 0.5129; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 340: 0.5180; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 347: 0.5215
Ranking signal diagnostics	Severity: warn; Category: duplicate_rank_signal; Component: annual_employment; Component label: Annual employment; Duplicate of: annual_output; Duplicate of label: Annual output; Original weight: 0.25; Consequence: Annual employment is disclosed but carries no ranking weight because it matched another scored component across the candidate set.; Severity: warn; Category: duplicate_rank_signal; Component: net_displacement_share; Component label: Net displacement share; Duplicate of: annual_output; Duplicate of label: Annual output; Original weight: 0.2; Consequence: Net displacement share is disclosed but carries no ranking weight because it matched another scored component across the candidate set.
Flip conditions	US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 would need to close 0.2041 on the 0-to-1 weighted scale this pack ranks on to overtake US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210.
Rank stability scope	No resampling stands behind these conditions. They are read off the size of the margin and the components that make it, so nothing here has tested how far the evidence under this order can move, and no variable in this pack has been varied at all.

Which Components Could Flip This Order

These are the components the order between US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 and US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 is exposed to, least movement first. Movement is stated on the 0-to-1 component scale the tables above score on, and the margin each one has to cover is 0.2041 of weighted score.

Net new capture. It carries 0.27 of US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250's weighted total, so 0.7581 of movement on this one component covers the whole 0.2041 margin: US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 gaining that much, or US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 losing it. US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 sits at 0.6305 and the component tops out at 1, so it cannot gain that much; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 falling from 1.0000 does it. It rests on derived evidence, the shared market solver.
Total market capture. It carries 0.27 of US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250's weighted total, so 0.7581 of movement on this one component covers the whole 0.2041 margin: US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 gaining that much, or US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 losing it. US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 sits at 0.4546 and the component tops out at 1, so it cannot gain that much; US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 falling from 1.0000 does it. It rests on derived evidence, the shared market solver.
Annual output. It carries 0.23 of US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250's weighted total, so 0.8844 of movement on this one component covers the whole 0.2041 margin: US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 gaining that much, or US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 losing it. Neither can move that far on this component alone from 0.1707 and 0.0039, so it changes the order only in combination with another. It rests on estimated evidence, the per-candidate study re-solve.
Study release quality. It carries 0.15 of US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250's weighted total, so 1.3266 of movement on this one component covers the whole 0.2041 margin: US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 gaining that much, or US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 losing it. Neither can move that far on this component alone from 0.5000 and 0.5000, so it changes the order only in combination with another. It rests on estimated evidence, the per-candidate study re-solve.
Self-cannibalization share. It carries 0.08 of US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250's weighted total, so 2.6533 of movement on this one component covers the whole 0.2041 margin: US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250 gaining that much, or US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210 losing it. Neither can move that far on this component alone from 1.0000 and 0.9523, so it changes the order only in combination with another. It rests on derived evidence, the shared market solver.

The evidence tier under each of these is what the next dollar buys. They rest on derived and estimated evidence, and the Source column above says whose. Moving the components at the top of this list onto measured evidence is the work the ranking is waiting on, and it is stated as a step under What Due Diligence Comes Next.

Not Established

Generated interval candidates are route-screening points and do not replace parcel selection, access engineering, or entitlement review.
A provisional leader is not a site recommendation unless rank stability is measured and established.
Correlated candidate propagation has not been run; ranking is a deterministic comparison of the supplied or solved components.
The ranking of these candidates is not established. It was not resampled, and the order it reports is one deterministic run. Which Components Could Flip This Order names the components it turns on and how far each would have to move.
No win probability is established. Nothing in this run estimates how often each candidate would come first if the inputs were resampled.

What This Pack Can Still Be Used For: every candidate reading, and not the Score column

Use this comparison to narrow the field, not to make the final selection. That is a job it can do, and it is the job it was run for: the candidate evidence cleared the release gate, so this pack may be circulated, a board may carry the top of this order forward as the live shortlist, and diligence money may be committed against it. Which Components Could Flip This Order names where that money goes first and how far each component would have to move. What this pack may not do is name the site that gets built. The order among the candidates at the top has not been tested against the evidence bounds at all, so nothing here says whether it would come out the same way twice.

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 Would Make This A Recommendation: the order has not been shown to hold

These are the gates this pack has not cleared, read from what the run recorded rather than from the prose around it.

Rank stability is not established. This comparison was not resampled, and the order it reports is one deterministic run.
2 conditions on this comparison apply to every candidate rather than to US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210, and are stated under Run Limits. The comparison assumes them all.

What would open them: each of these is a different purchase

Reduce the uncertainty on Net new capture and Total market capture. Nothing else in this comparison takes less movement to change the order: 0.7581 on Net new capture alone covers the whole 0.2041 margin, on the 0-to-1 component scale the tables above score on.

This section is composed from the two recorded gates, each candidate's status, the blockers and conditions recorded against the leading candidate, and the component decomposition of the margin. It states no judgement of its own: every item above is a field this run wrote, and a gate that stops being recorded stops being printed here.

What Due Diligence Comes Next: the ranking first, then what each interval point was told to confirm

These are the steps this pack records, and it records no others: what the engine was told about each interval point, 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. US-97 10-mile sweep mile 250's conditions are here beside US-97 10-mile sweep mile 210's because the ranking is not established and 0.2041 on the same 0-to-1 scale separates them, so neither site has been ruled out.

Establish rank stability. This comparison was not resampled, and the order it reports is one deterministic run, and that run is what stands between a provisional leader and a site recommendation.

What Evidence To Buy Next: 2 purchases, each answering something this pack recorded

What is safe to decide now. Use this comparison to narrow the field, not to make the final selection. That is a job it can do, and it is the job it was run for: the candidate evidence cleared the release gate, so this pack may be circulated, a board may carry the top of this order forward as the live shortlist, and diligence money may be committed against it. Which Components Could Flip This Order names where that money goes first and how far each component would have to move. What this pack may not do is name the site that gets built. The order among the candidates at the top has not been tested against the evidence bounds at all, so nothing here says whether it would come out the same way twice.

What is not safe to decide now. Which interval point to build on. That question stays open until the gates under What Would Make This A Recommendation clear, and no purchase below closes it on its own.

Traffic or travel-time study: buy measured drive times on the corridor, in place of the straight-line distance proxy the run substituted. It bears on the market-access and capture readings, which the proxy currently sets. It can move a component reading, and through it the order. Asked for by a run limit, which reads: “This interval sweep re-solves the study by candidate using distance-proxy market costs and a stated unemployment rate; measured road routing, live BLS LAUS/OEWS refresh, repeated…”
Wage and labour refresh: buy a live BLS LAUS and OEWS pull, in place of the stated rate the run was given. It bears on the employment and payroll readings, which a stated rate currently fixes. It can move a component reading, and through it the order. Asked for by a run limit, which reads: “This interval sweep re-solves the study by candidate using distance-proxy market costs and a stated unemployment rate; measured road routing, live BLS LAUS/OEWS refresh, repeated…”

What would release the recommendation. Not any single item above. Between them these 2 purchases can move a component reading, and through it the order - and the recommendation gate does not read any of those directly. It reads whether a resampling of the component evidence returns the same order often enough. Better inputs give that test a better chance of settling; they cannot settle it, and a pack that implied otherwise would be selling a gate rather than the work.

What cannot be promised. None of these purchases is offered as a way to reach a particular answer. Each one narrows a stated uncertainty; what it does to the order is not knowable before it is done, and it may confirm the current ranking, reverse it, or leave the margin too close to call. Buying all 2 would still not make a site recommendation safe unless the rank-stability gate clears on the evidence they produce.

Each trigger above is quoted from the pack's own recorded fields rather than composed for this section, so a reviewer can match every purchase to the blocker, flip driver, run limit or missing-evidence record that asks for it. A purchase no recorded object asks for is not listed here at all.

Diagnostics

Severity	Candidate	Message	Consequence
Warning		Annual employment matched Annual output across the candidate set	the repeated signal is disclosed but removed from the ranking weight
Warning		Net displacement share matched Annual output across the candidate set	the repeated signal is disclosed but removed from the ranking weight

Validation

Passedyes

Severity	Check	Message	Detail
Warning	Location diagnostic warning	Annual employment matched Annual output across the candidate set	Candidate: ; Consequence: the repeated signal is disclosed but removed from the ranking weight
Warning	Location diagnostic warning	Net displacement share matched Annual output across the candidate set	Candidate: ; Consequence: the repeated signal is disclosed but removed from the ranking weight