MARKET_FAILURES · WHY_EXISTING_PLATFORMS_CANNOT_SCORE_DATA_CENTER_SITES
The existing platforms were not built for this asset class.
Eight funded platforms with a combined $1.5B+ in capital cannot score a data center conversion opportunity correctly. Not because they lack resources. Because they were built for retail, restaurant, and consumer site selection — where the critical variables are foot traffic and demographics, not power infrastructure and DSCR.
POWER_BLIND
Power blindness
All eight funded platforms score demographics. Zero model CIAC, N-1 redundancy, or utility rate arbitrage — the three variables that determine whether a data center site is economically viable at all.
POST_LOI
Post-LOI analysis
Traditional site selection begins diligence after the Letter of Intent is signed. At that point, 5–15% of CapEx is already at risk. The 441-unit MOAT framework is completed pre-LOI — before a dollar of capital is committed.
RETAIL_BUILT
Wrong verticals
Vista, Buxton, Placer.ai, and Kalibrate were built for retail, restaurant, and consumer site selection. They score foot traffic, demographics, and consumer spending. None of this predicts data center viability.
NO_FINANCIAL
No financial pillar
Competing platforms identify locations. They do not score deal structure. The MOAT financial pillar produces a three-scenario IRR model (base/upside/stress), DSCR analysis, and exit optionality assessment as part of the site score itself.
SIX_PILLARS · 200_PILLAR_PTS · 441_ANALYTICAL_UNITS · EXPAND_FOR_DETAIL
Six pillars. 441 analytical units. Nothing guessed.
Select any pillar to see the specific analytical units within it, the data sources verified, the SS069 score for that pillar, and — critically — why no competing platform can score this dimension.
COMPETITIVE_ANALYSIS · 441_UNIT_SCORE · VS_EIGHT_FUNDED_PLATFORMS
Analytical coverage vs. every major funded platform.
Scores represent percentage of the 441 analytical units each platform covers. Hover any competitor bar to see the specific categories their platform cannot score.
B2B Systems (441-Unit)
PROPRIETARY · ALL_441_UNITS
0
HIIP Depth Protocols
Funding: N/A
0
Vista Site Selection
Funding: $50M+
0
SiteZeus
Funding: $30M+
0
Esri ArcGIS
Funding: $1B+
0
Buxton
Funding: $100M+
0
Placer.ai
Funding: $100M+
0
Kalibrate
Funding: $80M+
0
B2B Systems 441-Unit
Funded competitors (score/441)
Scores represent B2B Systems internal assessment of each platform's analytical coverage against the 441-unit framework. Based on published product documentation, customer case studies, and direct platform evaluation. Not independently audited.
PRE_LOI_COMPLETION · CAPITAL_PROTECTION · PROCESS_COMPARISON
Traditional analysis begins after you commit capital. Ours begins before.
The difference between post-LOI and pre-LOI completion is not a workflow preference. It is $400K–$1.1M of capital that either sits at risk during due diligence or never touches risk at all.
TRADITIONAL · POST_LOI
Site Identified
3–10 sites evaluated
No capital at risk yet
LOI Executed
5–15% of CapEx committed
$400K–$1.1M at risk
Due Diligence Begins
Engineering, legal, title
Additional $50K–$200K sunk
Analysis Complete
6–12 months post-LOI
Full capital exposed
Decision Point
Proceed, renegotiate, or abort
Abort = total sunk cost loss
B2B SYSTEMS · PRE_LOI
Site Identified
1,676 pre-scored database
Instant MOAT score available
441-Unit Analysis
Pre-LOI — zero capital at risk
Full methodology deployed
MOAT Score Verified
95%+ confidence threshold
SS069: 95/100
LOI Executed
With validated data
Capital deployed with certainty
Decision Point
Data-backed, fully informed
$0 sunk cost if disqualified
Capital at risk during traditional due diligence: $400K–$1.1M. Capital at risk during B2B Systems pre-LOI analysis: $0.
$0 CAPITAL_AT_RISKDATABASE_SCOPE · PRE_SCORED · MIDWEST_INDUSTRIAL
The properties screened. The one acquired.
PROPERTIES_SCREENED
0
Midwest industrial database
QUALIFIED_AT_85+
26
Cleared minimum threshold
ACQUIRED
1
SS069 · Score: 95 / 100
SELECTION_RATE
0.06%
1 in 1,676 qualified
The selectivity of the methodology is its primary signal. 1,676 properties were scored. 1 was acquired. That 0.06% selection rate — producing a $3.1M acquisition appraised at $12.0M — is the proof of the framework, not the claim.
PLATFORM_VS_TRADITIONAL · FIVE_DIMENSIONS · SELECT_TO_COMPARE
Five dimensions. Every one a measurable advantage.
Select any dimension to see the specific comparison and the dollar value of the advantage. These are not marketing claims — they are measurable structural differences in how site selection analysis is conducted.
PLATFORM_ECOSYSTEM · CONNECTED_PAGES
PLATFORM_LINK
Site Assessments
Full framework architecture, SS069 live demo, quick triage tool
Explore →
PLATFORM_LINK
SS069 Asset Profile
The methodology applied to a real asset — 95/100 MOAT, $12.0M appraised
Explore →
PLATFORM_LINK
Risk Architecture
Downside analysis, stress test calculator, concentric protection layers
Explore →
PLATFORM_LINK
Security Architecture
The operational risk layer built by Jeff Lee — Cyberland partnership
Explore →
REQUEST_SITE_ASSESSMENT · 441_UNIT_MOAT · PRE_LOI
Put the framework to work on your site.
The full 441-unit assessment is delivered pre-LOI. Before legal fees. Before engineering. Before capital is at risk.