Retail co-location methodology
fix(privacy): sync pwoodfine fork with canonical — pulls in 2026-08-03 jmwoodfine@gmail.com redaction (NEXT.md item 20) + 60 other canonical commits since fork diverged
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ --- schema: foundry-doc-v1 title: "Retail Co-location Methodology" title: "Retail co-location methodology" slug: co-location-methodology category: site-selection type: topic @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ status: active audience: customer-woodfine bcsc_class: current-fact language_protocol: PROSE-TOPIC last_edited: 2026-05-22 last_edited: 2026-07-11 editor: pointsav-engineering short_description: "A deterministic spatial-analysis framework that ranks commercial real-estate nodes by the objective convergence of independent, capital-intensive retail operators — independent corroboration in place of market sentiment." paired_with: site-selection/co-location-methodology.es.md @@ -60,6 +60,18 @@ Civic and institutional infrastructure that provides a non-cyclical, stable demo Sites are evaluated on a 12-rank matrix that maps to five quality tiers, separating commodity retail nodes from the rare locations where critical commercial elements converge. The map-facing labels — Regional, District, Local, Fringe — follow the ICSC retail property hierarchy described in [[co-location-tier-nomenclature|tier nomenclature]]. **Correction (2026-08-02):** two defects. (1) The real ICSC shopping-center hierarchy is Neighborhood/Community/Regional/Super Regional (plus named specialty types) — it has no "District," "Local," or "Fringe" tier, and only "Regional" is a real ICSC term. This "follows the ICSC hierarchy" claim is factually wrong. (2) Separately, this article's own 5-tier matrix cannot be the same system as [[co-location-tier-nomenclature]]'s 4-label Regional/District/Local/Fringe scheme — that scheme is assigned by an unrelated predicate-gate mechanism (population percentile, IoU overlap, civic classification), not this article's Hardware/ Warehouse/Healthcare/Higher-Ed composition matrix. This wiki maintains at least three unreconciled co-location scoring systems that reuse overlapping tier vocabulary — this citation conflates two of them. **Flagged, not resolved.** | Tier | Description | Commercial validation | |------|-------------|-----------------------| | ★★★★★ | Tier 5 — Full co-location | All four categories present: hardware, warehouse club, healthcare, higher education | @@ -76,6 +88,10 @@ The co-location index acts as a defensive filter for capital deployment. By focu The methodology applies consistently across global markets by mapping regional operators to these canonical roles. A planned expansion integrates logistics and transport data to add a fourth dimension to the matrix; that expansion is forward-looking and framed per `[ni-51-102]` and `[osc-sn-51-721]`. **Correction (2026-08-02):** the matrix already has four non-primary dimensions (Hardware, Warehouse, Healthcare, Higher Ed) — a planned addition would be a fifth dimension, not a "fourth." **Flagged, not resolved.** ## See also - [[co-location-ranking-system]] @@ -96,4 +112,4 @@ Anchor and secondary operator locations are sourced from **OpenStreetMap contrib --- *Copyright © 2026 Woodfine Capital Projects Inc. Licensed under [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).* *Copyright © 2026 Woodfine Capital Projects Inc. Licensed under [Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/).*