Sillian
Effectively tied with Mals. good terrain match · 64/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, mixed reliability match · 44/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeMals
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Mals is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
What could change the resultIncrease snow weight from 24 to 36 and Mals 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.
Increase snow weight from 24 to 36 and Mals becomes the leading option.
Increase access weight from 12 to 24 and Mals becomes the leading option.
Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 1 and Mals becomes the leading option.
Reduce scale weight from 16 to 2 and Mals becomes the leading option.
Why Sillian leads Mals · 2.1 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.