PSD.11:5.1 - A flood-service comparison with no scenario-free winner

Continue the illustrative next-season case with N, F, M, and S: continue the present arrangement, change fixed capacity, obtain a mobile reserve arrangement, or use a staged combination.

Suppose a later qualified deployment analysis now provides the previously missing conditional operating results for M. A compatible resource estimate and service model provide the following hypothetical analytical slice. Costs are incremental budget units above the common continuing baseline; service loss is hours when the specified pumping service is unavailable. Lower is preferred on both measures for this slice. No scenario probability is supplied.

These figures are invented to demonstrate the comparison; they are not engineering, financial, safety, or investment advice. The current sources do not establish reachable assistance or all property-loss consequences. Those value and protected-condition questions remain outside this numerical slice and can block an overall recommendation.

Under normal access, M costs less and has fewer service-loss hours than F. Under road loss, F loses fewer service hours but costs more. Thus the slice establishes no condition-independent dominance between F and M. N uses fewer incremental resources but loses more service hours; zero incremental cost does not mean that the baseline has no continuing obligations or consequences.

S is not assigned zero or dropped as an inferior candidate. Its missing whole-arrangement result is returned as a gap. The inspector can reproduce the narrower relations while seeing why neither those relations nor the table supports a complete four-candidate recommendation.