Meran 2000
Effectively tied with Montecampione. solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, good reliability match · 66/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.
Strongest alternativeMontecampione
Main uncertaintyThe lead over Montecampione is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.
What could change the resultReduce access weight from 12 to 11 and Meran 2000 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 access weight from 12 to 11 and Meran 2000 becomes the leading option.
Increase snow weight from 24 to 25 and Meran 2000 becomes the leading option.
Increase family & value weight from 12 to 13 and Meran 2000 becomes the leading option.
Increase scale weight from 16 to 17 and Meran 2000 becomes the leading option.
Why Meran 2000 leads Montecampione · 0.0 pts
Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.