Skip to content

OJOPYSee the radar

CBarrio cerradoScoop: First seenEvidence: Public sources cross-checked

Barrio cerrado · Altos

Signal PUB-PY-12

Altos · identity withheld

Signal index

52/100▲5

Ordinal engine index; not a probability or appraisal.

Public-source coverage

6/8dimensions with public data. It measures coverage, not official approval or probability of success.

Reading

Look, with reservations

Scoop

First seen

Risk pressure

Medium

Why this grade: no portal pricing in the area.

🔒 The engine detected cross-signal checks that affect the index. Their detail and impact are in the Evidence Brief.

Algorithm verdictCompare

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 6/8 with data · coverage 91% · ⓘ explains what it measures · tap each bar for why

LocationⓘMediumwhy

Where it is and how connected and serviced the zone is.

🔒 The breakdown with traceable sources and reasoned flags, in your Evidence Brief.

ScoopⓘHighwhy

How far ahead of the market you are before the hype arrives.

🔒 The breakdown with traceable sources and reasoned flags, in your Evidence Brief.

Short-stay rentⓘmicro-zone · US$234/night · MediaMediumwhy

Short-stay rental potential (Airbnb/Booking) in the zone.

🔒 The breakdown with traceable sources and reasoned flags, in your Evidence Brief.

DeveloperⓘMediumwhy

Developer track record: do they deliver or vanish?

🔒 The breakdown with traceable sources and reasoned flags, in your Evidence Brief.

Public documentary trailⓘMediumwhy

Whether there's a real case file, permits and entity (anti-hype).

🔒 The breakdown with traceable sources and reasoned flags, in your Evidence Brief.

Market tractionⓘLowwhy

Whether the zone is heating up (rising demand).

🔒 The breakdown with traceable sources and reasoned flags, in your Evidence Brief.

Resale liquidityⓘno datawhy

No public source for this dimension in this signal — that’s why it shows “no data”, not 0 (we don’t make it up).

🔒 The breakdown with traceable sources and reasoned flags, in your Evidence Brief.

Supply slackⓘno datawhy

No public source for this dimension in this signal — that’s why it shows “no data”, not 0 (we don’t make it up).

🔒 The breakdown with traceable sources and reasoned flags, in your Evidence Brief.

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 developer’s identity, exact location and reasoned red flags.

In this micro-zone we haven’t yet crossed portal comparables — that’s why liquidity and saturation show no data. This is coverage, not a flaw in the project: the MADES signal and location are present, and confidence is adjusted down accordingly.

Location approximate zone · ~5 km radius · exact in Evidence Brief

Source timing

Public environmental source dated ~7 days ago. Its commercial timing still needs a dated match; no lead is assumed. 🔒 Exact source date in your Evidence Brief.

Public evidence (MADES + registry)

Developer🔒 withheld

SignalConstrucción nueva · additional construction trail

Year2025

Cadastral account🔒

Registry entries🔒

Units—

Track record: DeveloperActiva

🔒 Declared documentary identity (Developer + cadastral account + registry entries, when present) — revealed in your Evidence Brief so your notary can cross-check it at the public registry.

Project contact & source

Official website🔒

MADES case file🔒

Source record🔒

Study responsible🔒

🔒 The full identity and sources in your Evidence Brief: developer website, MADES case file and source record, and the environmental study reference. Corporate phone and social links where the public source provides them.

Risk and evidence checks 4/4 ok

No alert · okThe check passes with the public data available.

Risk < 60 · okThe check passes with the public data available.

Coverage ≥ 50 · okThe check passes with the public data available.

Not sponsored · okThe check passes with the public data available.

🔒 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

≈

Flood · Mediumderived from elevation + watercourses · geo-data confidence: high · already discounted in the score (ZONE risk, not the developer's)

⚠

Env. hazards · Lownearest at 1970 m · residuos (MADES licences) · already discounted in the score (ZONE risk, not the developer's)

▲

Elevation · 249 mwatercourse at 622 m

History · evidence, market and model

First record taken. History builds with each update (signal vs portals vs source).

This is a radar signal

We located it in public sources. To see the project identity and full evidence, open its Evidence Brief — traceable sources, all 8 exact dimensions and the red flags. See an audited real case →

Declared identityDeveloper + cadastral account + registry entries, when present

8 exact dimensionsThe exact 0-100 score + the factor behind each (here you only see bands)

Price analyzedMedian U$S/m² + dispersion + detailed comparables

Risk breakdownWhich gate fails and the risk pressure behind it

Dated source comparisonMADES/portal dates + exact gap when the match is attributable

Project trackingFull study + score change history

Create an account or sign in to unlock the evidence.

Create account and open · US$24 →

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.