Screen candidate sites against spatial inclusion and exclusion criteria

Why use this

1. A planner applying several geographic criteria may find that individual map layers look sensible while their combined result depends heavily on units, coordinate systems and exclusion definitions. A clean candidate polygon can hide a mismatch between the requested question and the distance method.

2. This job could prepare a transparent spatial-screening plan with assumptions and review requirements attached. The resulting candidates should remain analytical possibilities for specialist review, not commitments about a site's suitability.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Translate explicit spatial criteria into operations, reconcile layer metadata and identify ambiguities that affect the candidate set.

Simpler alternative

Use manual inspection for a very small set of well-known sites with simple criteria.

Unsuitable when

The output would authorize land use or imply safety and legal eligibility without qualified local review.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Site criteria

   Owner

   Planning owner

   Minimum scope

   Inclusion/exclusion rules and intended distance meaning

   Quality check

   Specify units, thresholds and decision scope

2. Name

   Spatial-layer manifests

   Owner

   Authorized data owner

   Minimum scope

   Layer identities, CRS, dates and coverage

   Quality check

   Check geometry quality, licensing and missing areas

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Review fictional layer metadata and a proposed operation sequence; no GIS execution, downloads or candidate export.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current layer quality, GIS versions, coordinate transformations and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Restricted data access, software installation, publishing locations and site-selection commitments require approval.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Screening-plan candidate with layer lineage, operation order, unresolved assumptions and geometry-review checklist.

Critical checks

1. Align CRS/units; confirm distance meaning; preserve excluded/missing coverage; distinguish proposed screening from actual spatial validation.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Distance units do not match the threshold

   Why it matters

   The candidate area can be scaled incorrectly

   Proposed response

   Resolve unit semantics before analysis.

2. Signal

   An exclusion layer lacks part of the study area

   Why it matters

   A blank region may appear eligible by default

   Proposed response

   Mark coverage unknown and withhold a candidate conclusion.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define criteria and authoritative layer scope.

Ongoing review

1. GIS and planning specialists review geometry and real-world interpretation.

Unknowns

1. Data completeness, geometric accuracy, legal applicability and analysis costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent station, permitted-zone and exclusion-layer manifests with mismatched CRS and incomplete coverage; draft a preflight plan.

Acceptance checks

1. Flag both gaps; clarify distance meaning; generate no geometry or site recommendation.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if coordinate metadata, criteria or coverage is unresolved.

Limits

1. A spatial plan cannot establish candidate geometry accuracy or permission to acquire, develop or use a site.