Comparison workspace

Hold one metric frame constant across every selected country.

The compare view is built for faster analytical review. It keeps one methodology basis in place so differences come from the countries, not from moving assumptions.

Compared now

3 countriesChoose between two and five countries for side-by-side review

Matrix rows

3 metricsOrdered to match the methodology definition

Default use

Shortlist reviewFollow each row through to country-level source evidence

Metric matrix

Evidence first, narrative second

Metric	Spain	New Zealand	Netherlands
Published HeadroomHow explicitly the country publishes usable access capacity, headroom, or queue-relevant visibility for new projects.	87 / 100Demand access transparency is unusually strongdirectSources	74 / 100Capacity outlook is visible through planning toolsproxy-richSources	55 / 100Transparency is high; available room is lowmixedSources
Connection ProcessHow legible, prioritised, and decision-ready the grid-connection process is for serious new generation and demand projects.	76 / 100Access process is readable and evidence-backedmixedSources	84 / 100Connection process is clear and developer-legibledirectSources	58 / 100Process is transparent, not easymixedSources
Reinforcement MomentumHow visibly the operator is building or enabling the network and flexibility needed to absorb additional load and generation.	82 / 100Transmission expansion keeps pace with transitionmixedSources	80 / 100Future reinforcement programme is coherentmixedSources	69 / 100Buildout is large, near-term relief is slowerproxy-richSources

Comparison set

Select up to five countries

3 selected. The scoring frame stays fixed to this snapshot.

Readout

What this matrix is for

Use it to separate shortlist candidates quickly

Start with score direction, then inspect the raw metric label in each cell.
Use country pages for source citations and method notes before making a call.
Do not treat similar scores as identical risk; confidence flags still matter.