Bonneval sur Arc
Effectively tied with Ceillac en Queyras. solid terrain match · 61/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, strong reliability match · 79/100 — led by strong snow resilience—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeCeillac en Queyras
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Ceillac en Queyras is small. Most of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
What could change the resultReduce terrain weight from 22 to 5 and Ceillac en Queyras 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 5 and Ceillac en Queyras becomes the leading option.
Increase family & value weight from 12 to 32 and Ceillac en Queyras becomes the leading option.
Increase access weight from 12 to 45 and Ceillac en Queyras becomes the leading option.
Increase snow weight from 24 to 81 and Ceillac en Queyras becomes the leading option.
Why Bonneval sur Arc leads Ceillac en Queyras · 2.7 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.