A decision platform ranks projects by requiring 11 data points, 1 assumption, and identifying 5 unknowns, then refusing to rank if evidence is insufficient. Every project dimension gets labeled as fact, assumption, or unknown with its source. Five owners and five decision gates move it forward, each confirming values before the system runs.
The answer leads with the management disposition. Here it is review. Insufficient evidence for a defensible ranking. 11 user-supplied facts, 1 assumption, 5 unknowns. The platform says so, instead of picking a winner it cannot defend. Every dimension, capacity, schedule, cost, distance, land, permitting and study status, is labelled as a fact, an assumption or an unknown with its origin attached. Nothing is inferred. Nothing is invented. Uncertainty becomes an execution plan. 5 owners, 5 gates. The utility lead confirms capacity and study path. Engineering normalizes scope and cost. Siting tests land and routing. Management sets the criteria and only then re-ranks. One click hands the case to the decision engine. The intake is prefilled from the conversation and every value must be confirmed. A formal analysis runs only on an authorized network snapshot. When there is not one, it says not ready rather than substituting sample data.
