Loteamiento · Carapeguá
Signal SUELO-PY-19Carapeguá · identity withheld
Why this grade: the signal score · next ceiling: below the quality floor for top grades (risk/confidence/coverage).
Interesting: check it against comparables before making a move. 🔒 Full reasoning in your Evidence Brief.
What would change it: Would move to “Escalate to expert” with grade A/S, ≥70% coverage and cross-checked public sources.
The analysis, dimension by dimension 4/8 with data · coverage 53% · ⓘ explains what it measures · tap each bar for why
The public view shows bands; the exact number only appears with its drivers and sources in the Evidence Brief. “no data” = no public source for that dimension in this signal (not 0: we don’t make it up). What your Evidence Brief unlocks: traceable sources for each data point, the land subdivider’s identity, exact location and reasoned red flags.
In this micro-zone we haven’t yet crossed portal comparables — that’s why price, zone traction, resale liquidity and lot saturation show no data. This is coverage, not a flaw in the lot: the MADES signal and location are present, and confidence is adjusted down accordingly.
🔒 Developer’s official website, video and brochures/floor plans in your Evidence Brief — they identify the developer.
Location approximate zone · ~5 km radius · exact in Evidence Brief
Surroundings 22 services within 1.5 km · zone media
What’s around the project, cross-checked with OpenStreetMap. The breakdown with distances (to each school, hospital, bus stop…) is in your Evidence Brief.
Early signal via MADES · detected ~133 days ago, which typically precedes portal listings. 🔒 Exact detection date in your Evidence Brief.
Public evidence (MADES + registry)
🔒 Registry identity (Land subdivider + cadastral account + registry entries) — revealed in your Evidence Brief. These are the keys to the public registry — they unlock together when you open it.
Project contact & source
🔒 The full lead in your Evidence Brief: land subdivider website, MADES case file and source record, and environmental study responsible — the route to the lot. Phone and social, where the source provides them.
Risk and evidence checks 4/4 ok
🔒 What to request to close the failing gates (documents, concrete verifications), in your Evidence Brief.
Zone risk (geo) DEM + OSM + MADES · geo risk weighs on the score
History · evidence, market and model
- Jul 03Recalibración del modelo (v1 → v2): los cambios de esta corrida reflejan el motor, no el mercado
This is a radar signal
We caught it early from public sources. To see the lot identity and full evidence, open the Evidence Brief — traceable sources, all 8 exact dimensions and the red flags. See an example →
One-time payment, no subscription. Or the Pase (US$49/mo) opens them all.
Anonymised public signal — company name withheld until your Evidence Brief, never personal data. OJOPY is not a broker and does not sell real estate; it does not guarantee returns. The analysis reduces information asymmetry — it does not eliminate risk. Methodology · Legal.