Use a numerical slice at its actual scope
PSD.8 keeps no-new-purchase baseline N, fixed pumping F, mobile pumping M and unfinished staged proposal S visible in the present pumping inquiry. S still needs a specified first intervention before its consequences can be compared. Storage and demand-management leads remain outside this narrower set. The supplied numerical slice covers only F and M, on illustrative pumping-service-loss and incremental-cost scales:
| Direction | Loss with normal access | Loss with road loss | Incremental cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed pumping, F | 2 | 3 | 8 |
| Mobile pumping, M | 1 | 9 | 5 |
These are model values, not monetary prices, measured municipal performance or a complete public-consequence account. Baseline, staged, assistance, protection and other material branches remain outside this calculation.
PSD.9 keeps the declared value scheme separate from a participant’s concern. PSD.10 distinguishes an assumed road-loss probability from an established one. PSD.11 can compare the stated consequences, and PSD.12 exposes a possible reversal rather than hiding it.
In this deliberately stated weighted-loss model, let p be the assumed road-loss probability and λ the declared cost weight. The two totals are 2 + p + 8λ for F and 1 + 8p + 5λ for M. F is lower only when 7p > 1 + 3λ. With λ = 0.5, p = 0.2 favors M; p = 0.6 favors F. Neither probability nor the weight has been established for the board’s decision.
The result therefore identifies a decision-bearing uncertainty and a conditional comparison. It does not prove that a probability obtains, that assistance is reachable, that a protected condition can be traded away, or that F or M should be bought. More decimal places would not close those gaps.