Spend and population estimation: provenance and assumptions
docs(gis): resolve 5 flagged fidelity-audit callouts (dedup threshold, parent-child model, tier taxonomy, Mexico boundary fallback, name-resolution confidence basis, Aldi Nord/Süd Poland fact) + fix wrong ES paired_with slug in site-ledger-integration
@@ -66,14 +66,7 @@ MAUP is not a defect to be fixed; it is an inherent property of any areal aggreg ### What confidence already exists The pipeline already computes a per-market **confidence flag** in `regional-markets.json`. This flag is a function of input-data quality and coverage: clusters in OSM-sparse or census-stale regions, or clusters whose anchor geometry was resolved by name-query fallback rather than an exact Wikidata brand match, are lower confidence. **Correction (2026-08-02, verified against canonical `origin/main`):** the real `score-regional-markets.py` documents `mkt_conf` as the "geocode confidence of the best cluster in this RM," downgraded specifically where region-**naming** resolution returns administrative names instead of colloquial names — a function of [[regional-name-resolution-architecture|name-resolution]] quality, not POI/census data-ingestion quality as described here. **Flagged, not resolved.** The pipeline already computes a per-market **confidence flag** in `regional-markets.json`. This flag is a function of [[regional-name-resolution-architecture|regional name-resolution]] quality, not POI or census data-ingestion quality. It is downgraded specifically where the name-resolution pipeline falls back to an administrative boundary name rather than resolving a colloquial, settlement-level place name. At the 2026-05-22 build, 2,942 of 2,986 Regional Market objects carried the high-confidence flag. Despite this, the flag is not yet rendered anywhere — the map draws every cluster at full opacity with an identical marker, so a lower-confidence estimate is visually indistinguishable from a higher-confidence one.