Neuruh Research Series

SiteGrid

Multi-agent site selection intelligence: four agents score a site, a cognitive arbitration engine weighs their debate, and the result is one Site Viability Score.

Document
Design document and working simulation, v1.0
Date
2026-11-03
Source
SiteGrid design paste, 2026-11-03
Status
Design, not production

1. What changed for 2026

The source document was written when GPT-4 and Claude-3 were current, Twitter still existed under that name, and the pipeline assumed a fresh AWS/GCP build. This section lists every modernization, plainly.

  1. Models. The source names GPT-4 and Claude-3 as the Agent Core runtimes. Updated to current 2026 frontier models (Claude, GPT, Grok) as the agent runtime options. The demo on this page runs deterministic in-browser rules and makes no live model calls.
  2. Data sources. Twitter is now X. Social feeds are current X, Instagram, and TikTok. Mobility and spending data come from current anonymized providers, named generically here because no provider is contracted. BLS employment data and DoT project feeds are current.
  3. Strata and Valuator prompt stacks. The source says "Prompt stacks for Strata and Valuator follow this same detailed, four-part structure" but does not give them. They are written for this build in that same four-part structure (system prompt, context priming, tasking prompt, chain-of-thought instruction, output schema) and labeled Written for this build wherever they appear. They are not quoted from the source.
  4. Data Crucible, replaced for land. For land and parcels, Neuruh already has LANDOS, the land signal engine (50 signals, SHA-256 provenance receipts). LANDOS replaces the generic geospatial ETL for land. See the LANDOS buyer walkthrough.
  5. Valuation, replaced. The E1 Land and Zoning Unlock engine (residual land value) and the Residential Underwriting Engine (ARV, repair tiers, Wholesale and Novation MAO, 72 percent buy cap) are the existing valuation layers. See the Land and Zoning Unlock Engine and the Residential Underwriting Engine. The Valuator agent's Monte Carlo output feeds into those engines' math. It does not replace them.
  6. Opportunity scoring, replaced. The Recipe system (30 recipe families, 4 active hunt recipes) is the existing opportunity-scoring layer for parcels. See the Recipe system demo.
  7. Governance. The agents run under N-Cell, the governed adaptive topology protocol. See the N-Cell position paper and the N-Cell worked example.
  8. System diagram, updated. The source diagram says "Input > GPT > Output" and shows a React-based dashboard served through a GraphQL presentation layer. The 2026 diagram uses frontier models, the LANDOS signal layer, the arbitration engine, and a static single-file presentation layer for the demo. The production React and GraphQL layers remain a future build, not a claim about this page.
  9. Punctuation. Em dashes in the source text were replaced with commas and periods to match the house style. Wording is otherwise unchanged in the quoted stacks.

2. Systems that already exist, and what they replace

SiteGrid is not built from zero. These Neuruh systems already do parts of the job. SiteGrid's role is the agent debate and the single viability score on top of them.

SiteGrid pieceExisting systemWhat it does
Data Crucible, land and parcelsLANDOSLand signal engine. 50 signals, SHA-256 provenance receipts. Replaces the generic geospatial ETL for land.
Valuator, land valueE1 Land and Zoning UnlockResidual land value: finished lot value minus development, entitlement, holding, and builder profit.
Valuator, residential valueResidential Underwriting EngineARV, repair tiers ($70/$40/$25/$15/$5 per above-grade square foot), Wholesale and Novation MAO, 72 percent buy cap.
Opportunity scoringRecipe system30 recipe families, 4 active hunt recipes. Scores parcels as opportunities before SiteGrid debates them.
Agent governanceN-Cell paper and worked exampleGoverned adaptive topology protocol. The agents run under it, with authority, lifecycle, and memory masks.

Nothing on this page calls any of those systems. They are linked as the production layers the demo stands in for. A production SiteGrid would ingest LANDOS signals, hand valuation to E1 and the Residential engine, take opportunity scores from the Recipe system, and run its agents under N-Cell.

3. Tool 1. Site Viability Analyzer

Enter a site. Atlas, Pulse, Strata, and Valuator run in parallel and each returns a JSON output and a score. The Cognitive Arbitration Engine then flags conflicts, flags synergies, applies attenuation weights, and synthesizes one final Site Viability Score with a transparent debate log.

The preloaded sample site is the source's worked example: 123 Main St, USA. Its Atlas score is 75 and its Pulse score is 88, exactly as the source gives them. Strata and Valuator scores are computed by the rules below, because the source gives no worked scores for them. Where the source gives no formula, the rule is labeled illustrative on this page.

Site facts

Valuator inputs

Base-case probability is implied: 1 minus upside probability minus downside probability. Valuator score is an illustrative rule: 70 plus 400 times the expected-value premium over base value, clamped to 0 to 100. The source gives no Valuator scoring formula.

Agent outputs

Atlas
--
Structural viability
Pulse
--
Human dynamics
Strata
--
Network position
Valuator
--
Probabilistic value

Atlas JSON

Run the Agent Core to see Atlas output.

Pulse JSON

Run the Agent Core to see Pulse output.

Strata JSON

Run the Agent Core to see Strata output.

Valuator JSON

Run the Agent Core to see Valuator output.

Cognitive Arbitration Engine

Step 1 collects the four JSON outputs. Step 2a flags conflicts. Step 2b flags synergies. Step 3 applies attenuation weights. Step 4 synthesizes the final weighted Site Viability Score and a transparent debate log.

No run yet.

Debate log

  1. No run yet.

Final Site Viability Score

--

4. Tool 2. Agent Prompt Stack Explorer

Each agent's full prompt stack: core system prompt, context priming (data inputs), tasking prompt, chain-of-thought instruction, and output schema. Atlas and Pulse are quoted from the source. Strata and Valuator are written for this build in the same four-part structure and labeled as such.

Agent Atlas (Macro-Economic and Zoning) Quoted from source

Core System Prompt: You are Agent Atlas, a specialized geo-economic analyst. Your expertise lies in parsing official documents (zoning codes, municipal plans, economic reports) and geospatial data. Your analysis is strictly objective and based only on the provided data sources; you disregard anecdotal evidence. You are precise, factual, and always cite your sources. Your primary function is to establish the structural, regulatory, and long-term economic foundation for a site's viability.

Context Priming (Data Input):

  • site_coordinates.json: {lat, long}
  • zoning_codes.pdf: Local municipal zoning PDF.
  • master_plan.txt: The 10-year city master plan document.
  • economic_data.csv: BLS data for the MSA (employment, wages, sector growth).
  • infrastructure_feed.xml: Real-time feed of approved DoT projects.
  • tax_assessment_db.sql: Historical and current property tax assessment data for the parcel and its neighbors.
  • geological_survey.json: Data on soil type, flood plains, and other environmental factors.

Tasking Prompt: Analyze the provided data for the site at the given coordinates. Identify the current zoning designation, any pending zoning changes or historical variances, and relevant upcoming infrastructure projects within a 5-mile radius, noting their potential downstream effects (e.g., increased traffic, noise). Assess the 5-year economic outlook for the region, identifying both growth sectors and potential vulnerabilities. Calculate the property tax burden and identify any environmental red flags. Synthesize these findings into a "Structural Viability" score.

Chain-of-Thought Instruction: In your analysis, you must first explicitly state the key findings from each data source. Detail the direct implications, then synthesize. For example: "1. From zoning_codes.pdf, I have identified the site is zoned C-2 Commercial. 2. From master_plan.txt, this area is slated for 'beautification,' implying stricter design codes in the future. 3. Synthesizing these, development is straightforward now but will likely face higher costs and scrutiny within 3-5 years."

Output Schema (JSON), worked example from the source:

{
  "agentName": "Atlas",
  "analysis": {
    "zoning": {
      "code": "C-2 Commercial",
      "status": "Active",
      "pendingChanges": "Application Z-2025-04 for mixed-use variance pending.",
      "historicalVariances": ["Setback variance granted in 2018 for adjacent parcel."]
    },
    "infrastructure": [
      {"project": "Light Rail Expansion", "distance": "2.1 miles", "completion": "2027-Q4", "impact": "Positive (Increased access), Negative (Construction disruption 2025-2027)"}
    ],
    "economics": {
      "employment_outlook": "Stable (+1.5% YoY)",
      "key_sectors": ["Healthcare", "Logistics"],
      "sector_vulnerability": "High dependency on logistics sector, sensitive to fuel price shocks."
    },
    "environmental": {
      "flood_plain_status": "Outside 100-year flood plain",
      "soil_type": "Loam (Stable for construction)"
    }
  },
  "chainOfThought": "1. Zoning identified as C-2. 2. Pending variance Z-2025-04 noted. 3. Light rail project identified. 4. Economic dependency on logistics flagged as a risk.",
  "score": 75,
  "summary": "The site has stable zoning and benefits from upcoming transit but carries moderate risk due to economic sector dependency and future regulatory tightening."
}

5. Tool 3. System Diagram

The data flow for a single query. Click any stage to see what it does and what data it passes. The source diagram said "Input > GPT > Output" with a React dashboard and a GraphQL presentation layer. The 2026 version below uses frontier models, the LANDOS signal layer, and a static single-file presentation layer for the demo.

1. USER INPUT (WAR ROOM) Address: 123 Main St, USA 2. DATA CRUCIBLE (LANDOS signal layer for land) Geospatial indexing, 5-mile radius, tagged to parcel NLP pre-processing of zoning and plans. Time-series normalization of mobility, spending, transit. 3. AGENT CORE (PARALLEL, FRONTIER MODEL RUNTIME) Atlas (structured extraction) | Pulse (time-series patterns) Strata (GNN centrality, link prediction) | Valuator (Monte Carlo) Each returns a JSON score. Runtime options: Claude, GPT, Grok. 4. COGNITIVE ARBITRATION ENGINE Collects four JSON outputs. Flags conflicts. Flags synergies. Applies attenuation weights. Synthesizes the Site Viability Score and a debate log. 5. PRESENTATION LAYER Static single-file demo. Production: API to GraphQL. 6. UI OUTPUT (WAR ROOM)

Stage detail

Click a stage in the diagram to see what it does, what data it takes in, and what it passes on. The stages run in order: input, crucible, agent core, arbitration, presentation, output.

The pipeline in text

  1. User input. A site address enters the War Room. Example: 123 Main St, USA.
  2. Data Crucible. Geospatial indexing fetches all data within a 5-mile radius, tagged to the specific parcel. NLP pre-processing extracts entities and summaries from PDF and TXT documents (zoning, plans). Time-series normalization aligns hourly mobility, spending, and transit data. Output: a single comprehensive site_data_package.json for the Agent Core. For land, this stage is LANDOS.
  3. Agent Core. Four agents run in parallel: Atlas (structured data extraction and synthesis, JSON score), Pulse (time-series anomaly and pattern detection, JSON score), Strata (network centrality and link prediction, JSON score), Valuator (probabilistic forecasting, JSON score).
  4. Cognitive Arbitration Engine. 1. Collects all four JSON outputs. 2a. Flags conflicts (e.g., Atlas zoning Industrial versus Pulse vibe Family-Oriented). 2b. Flags synergies (e.g., Pulse traffic peak Lunch and Strata synergy high density of office buildings). 3. Applies attenuation weights, dynamically adjusting agent scores based on severity of conflicts. 4. Synthesizes a final, weighted Site Viability Score and a transparent debate log.
  5. Presentation layer. In production, an API serving the final JSON to GraphQL. In this demo, the static single file you are reading.
  6. UI output. The War Room: the final score, the debate log, and each agent's evidence.

6. Tool 4. Bundle Configurator

Pick a white-label bundle and a site profile. The tool shows that bundle's customization layer applied to the site: which agent weights change, which Data Crucible feeds are added, the bundle's value proposition, and a bundle-adjusted viability score.

No bundle applied yet.

--

No bundle applied yet.

7. Tool 5. Valuator Monte Carlo

The Valuator agent's simulation, run in your browser. Enter a base value, upside and downside scenarios with probabilities, and a hurdle price. The tool runs a deterministic Monte Carlo (seeded, 1,000 trials by default) and returns the expected value, P10, P50, P90, and the probability the site clears the hurdle. Same seed gives the same result every time.

Base-case probability is implied: 1 minus upside probability minus downside probability. If the probabilities sum to more than 1, the tool reports an error and runs nothing.

No run yet.

Expected value
--
P10
--
P50 (median)
--
P90
--
P (clears hurdle)
--

8. The four white-label bundles, in full

This strategy repackages the core SiteGrid technology for specific, high-value verticals, enabling focused marketing, premium pricing, and the creation of deep, defensible moats.

Bundle 1: SiteGrid QSR

Target niche: Quick Service and Fast-Casual Restaurant Chains. Key personas: VP of Real Estate, Franchise Development Manager.

Customization layer:

"Stop cannibalizing your own sales. SiteGrid QSR identifies sites with the perfect blend of traffic, co-tenancy, and competitive insulation to maximize per-store revenue. Reduce new site selection errors by up to 30% and accelerate time-to-market."

Bundle 2: SiteGrid Health

Target niche: Urgent Care Clinics, Dental Offices, Veterinary Clinics ("Medtail"), Physical Therapy centers.

Customization layer:

"Place your clinic directly in the path of patient need. SiteGrid Health pinpoints underserved communities with the right demographic, insurance, and competitive profile for a thriving, high-utilization practice from day one."

Bundle 3: SiteGrid Charge

Target niche: Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Networks, Fleet Operators, Convenience Stores, Big-box Retailers.

Customization layer:

"Build your EV charging network ahead of the demand curve, not behind it. SiteGrid Charge identifies strategic locations with high dwell times, low competition, and strong grid support to maximize charger utilization and capture long-term market share."

Bundle 4: SiteGrid Logistics

Target niche: Warehouse developers, last-mile delivery companies, 3rd Party Logistics (3PL) providers.

Customization layer:

"Optimize your supply chain from the ground up. SiteGrid Logistics identifies warehouse and distribution sites that minimize transport costs, reduce delivery times, and ensure access to a stable labor force, directly impacting your bottom line."

9. Sources and status

Source: The Aegis Philosophy and SiteGrid design paste, saved 2026-11-03 at ~/workspace/your_files/aegis-sitegrid-source.md. This build covers the SiteGrid half only. The Aegis claims-underwriting half is a separate system and is not built here.

Status: Design document and working simulation. DESIGNED is not DEPLOYED is not LIVE. No live data feeds, no live model calls, all demo data synthetic.

What is quoted: The Atlas and Pulse prompt stacks, the system diagram stages, and the four bundle descriptions are reproduced from the source in full, with em dashes replaced by commas and periods per house style.

What is written for this build: The Strata and Valuator prompt stacks, and every scoring formula on this page. The source gives no formulas for those scores. Each is labeled where it appears.

Linked Neuruh systems (verified live 2026-11-03):