Valgrande Pajares
Effectively tied with Passo Mendola. mixed terrain match · 48/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 42/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativePasso Mendola
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Passo Mendola is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.
What could change the resultReduce terrain weight from 22 to 20 and Passo Mendola becomes the leading option.
Difference between the first and second option.
The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–1.
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 20 and Passo Mendola becomes the leading option.
Increase family & value weight from 12 to 14 and Passo Mendola becomes the leading option.
Increase scale weight from 16 to 23 and Passo Mendola becomes the leading option.
Increase lift system weight from 14 to 21 and Passo Mendola becomes the leading option.
Why Valgrande Pajares leads Passo Mendola · 0.7 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.