Skip to content
See the radar
Methodology · the radar engine

How we score it

We locate signals in MADES, registries, and listings, check their timing against attributable commercial sources, and rank them with our engine. Each Evidence Brief shows what was found, what is missing, and what is worth asking. We do not tell you whether to buy: we reduce information asymmetry.

1 · What we measure

Each signal is worked through in layers. This is not an appraisal or a legal opinion: it is a map of what is verifiable in public sources and what is not yet.

The projectWhat it is, what is promised, what stage it is at, and what public signal surfaced it (environmental filing in MADES/SIAM, registration, announcement).
The locationZone, surroundings, access, demand, and how liquid resale or rental is.
The developer / entityWho is behind it, what public track record they have, and whether the entity is on record and identifiable in public registries.
Public signalsFilings, permits, announcements, and digital trail that confirm (or contradict) what is promised.
Price / m² and comparablesHow the price compares against similar properties in the same area.
Public and missing documentationWhat appears in public sources, what should exist, and what is conspicuously absent.
Yield promisesWhether the promised returns hold up against the real rental market.
Red flagsWhat can go wrong: legal, construction, delivery, price, or liquidity.
QuestionsThe specific questions worth taking to the seller, the lawyer, or the notary.

2 · How we score it

We cross-reference public sources with comparable data from the area. The engine organizes scattered information, measures coverage and risk over public sources, and marks what is missing and what is left without a public source to back it.

What matters is not the verdict alone, but traceability: every finding is linked to its source. In each signal's Evidence Brief you can see where each claim comes from, and separate what is confirmed from what is merely a seller promise.

We cross-referencepublic sources + local price and rental comparables.
The engine organizesgroups signals, weighs the risk, and marks what is missing — the verdict is algorithmic, never a buy recommendation.
Fully traceableevery finding points to its source: you see what was found and where it comes from.

3 · How to read the index

The 0-100 index consistently ranks signals inside OJOPY. It is ordinal: it is not a probability of success, an appraisal, an expected return, or a calibrated scientific measurement.

A small difference — for example, 62 versus 58 — should not decide anything on its own. Read the grade and band first; then review which data is covered, what is missing, and which sources support each finding.

Public viewshows bands by dimension to avoid context-free apparent precision.
Evidence Briefshows the exact index alongside its drivers, sources, and missing data.
Model changesa recalibration can move the index without any project or market change; the history identifies it separately and restarts the comparison.

4 · Weights, missing data, and penalties

Weights are relative within each asset type. For construction, the approximate active mix is: location 21%, signal timing 19%, rental context 16%, developer 15%, market traction 10%, public documentary trail 10%, liquidity 5%, and saturation 4%.

For land: location 26%, land pricing 20%, documentary trail 16%, liquidity 12%, saturation 10%, timing 8%, traction 5%, and subdivider 3%. Rental and construction timing do not score raw land.

Unknown datais null, not zero. It is not treated as bad and is never filled with an assumption.
Effect of missing datathe calculation renormalizes over measured dimensions, but coverage and confidence fall; below 50% coverage the grade is capped, and below 30% it cannot exceed D.
Risk pressurethe worst observed risk leads, with a fraction of other relevant risks added. At 75/100 the signal moves to critical review.
Versionsthe current model is v2. If weights or rules change, history marks the recalibration and resets the comparison so it is not attributed to the project.
Historical validationwe publish retrospective validations against dated sources, including counterexamples and matching failures. We do not yet present the index as a calibrated predictive model.

5 · Risk scale

Each block of the Evidence Brief carries a risk level. What could not be verified is not assumed to be fine: it is flagged as insufficient information.

LowClean signal, no relevant alerts in what could be verified.
MediumThere are points to watch or clarify, but nothing that stops you upfront.
HighSerious red flags appear; evidence is needed before proceeding.
CriticalThere is a serious problem or a data point that does not add up; do not proceed without review.
Insufficient informationNot enough data to assess; request documentation before deciding.

6 · Preliminary verdict

We close with one of five evidence states. They are preliminary and describe what could be cross-referenced — the verdict is an algorithmic reading of public sources, never a "buy" or "don't buy".

MonitorThe signal is weak or very early; we keep watching, no action.
Request evidenceConfidence or validation is not there yet; data or public confirmations are missing.
CompareInteresting: check it against comparables before making a move.
Escalate to expertWhat is verifiable checks out and deserves independent professional review (lawyer or notary).
Critical reviewRed flags or risk pressure appear that, today, outweigh the attractiveness.

The verdict describes the evidence, it does not recommend buying; the decision is always yours.

7 · The honest limit

  • It does not replace a lawyer or a notary: it makes the buyer better prepared, it does not replace legal review.
  • It does not guarantee that the project is safe or that the investment will work out.
  • We are not a broker and we do not sell properties.
  • What it reduces is the information asymmetry: seeing risks early and coming to the table with the right questions.
  • An environmental date may precede or follow marketing; a timing advantage is only stated against a specific dated source.
See the radarExplore early signals and open their evidence.

Want to see the output? Audited real case · pricing · why we are independent.