Reutte
Effectively tied with Laterns. solid terrain match · 56/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 26/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeLaterns
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Laterns is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
What could change the resultReduce terrain weight from 22 to 17 and Laterns becomes the leading option.
Difference between the first and second option.
The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.
Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.
Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.
Explore decision boundaries · what preference change flips the winner?
These are the smallest tested single-dimension changes that produce a different leader. Apply one to inspect that scenario; no new database query is required to calculate the boundary.
Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 17 and Laterns becomes the leading option.
Increase scale weight from 16 to 22 and Laterns becomes the leading option.
Increase family & value weight from 12 to 33 and Laterns becomes the leading option.
Increase snow weight from 24 to 47 and Laterns becomes the leading option.
Why Reutte leads Laterns · 0.6 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.