Schnalstal
Effectively tied with Pettneu am Arlberg. good terrain match · 73/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, exceptional reliability match · 96/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativePettneu am Arlberg
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Pettneu am Arlberg is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.
What could change the resultIncrease access weight from 12 to 15 and Pettneu am Arlberg 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 access weight from 12 to 15 and Pettneu am Arlberg becomes the leading option.
Increase lift system weight from 14 to 18 and Pettneu am Arlberg becomes the leading option.
Reduce scale weight from 16 to 11 and Pettneu am Arlberg becomes the leading option.
Reduce snow weight from 24 to 18 and Pettneu am Arlberg becomes the leading option.
Why Schnalstal leads Pettneu am Arlberg · 1.0 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.