AMK Hub, Ang Mo Kio Town Centre
Does this location suit your healthcare business? Eight healthcare and healthcare-adjacent formats -- GP clinic (heartland or CBD setting), dental clinic, aesthetic clinic, TCM clinic, community pharmacy, chiropractic clinic, and veterinary clinic -- are scored against the same shared site signals and ranked by how this location compares with each format's own benchmarked sites. This report does not state whether any healthcare use is licensable or lawful in a specific unit.
8 formats assessed at this site · ranked by benchmark percentile · generated 2026-09-06
Executive overview
Top 6% of comparable GP Clinic (Heartland) sites — benchmarked against 269 comparable sites sampled 2026-09-02.
Peer sites are random points in commercially-zoned land use across Singapore's planning areas (~330 planned, 6 per area; points whose signals were suppressed or incomplete are excluded — 269 remain), scored with engine model v5-step20. The SAME commercial-site population underlies every format on this page, so percentiles across formats are directly comparable; raw scores are not. Medians are unweighted; the sample is a fixed dated snapshot — its shape can shift as the corpus grows.
8.8 points above the peer median.
Recommended format: GP Clinic (Heartland) — this site's score sits at the 94th percentile of 269 comparable GP Clinic (Heartland) sites (at or above that format's median), leading the 8-format shortlist below.
A GP clinic fits this site's dense residential catchment and elderly population share.
the 99.6/100 score overstates certainty about actual demand: several demand signals are only partially met and no footfall or transaction data is measured.
Primary demand comes from local residents — 76,311 residents within 1km in an 59% HDB catchment. Secondary support comes from commuter flow from the interchange (ANG MO KIO INTERCHANGE MRT 271.0m away), family trips supported by the childcare and school cluster. By contrast, daytime-worker demand is limited (office density 1.9/100); destination draw is minimal (hotel and park proximity scores are at the low end).
Why it could work
- The resident base within 1km (76,311) combines with exceptional transit (ANG MO KIO INTERCHANGE MRT 271.0m away) to support both repeat local visits and commuter-linked stops, so the format is not dependent on a single walk-in catchment.
- The catchment's 59% HDB housing mix and income position at the 7th percentile among planning areas align with the format's value-oriented target customer, and the measured demand-generator cluster adds trip frequency beyond the resident core.
What could prevent it
- The weighted demand signals earn near-full credit (Resident Population Density 30.0 of 30.0 possible points), but the model scores potential, not proven throughput — actual customer capture depends on behaviour the report does not measure.
- The site-and-zoning context is only moderate (zoning 48.6/100), and no footfall, daypart, or unit-economics data is measured — throughput and rent viability remain to be verified on site.
Data coverage — how many of the engine's signals could be computed for this site — is a measure of data completeness, not a judgement on whether to proceed.
Ranking basis: the 8 formats are ordered by where this site's score sits within each format's own benchmark sample (percentile) — never by a raw cross-format score. See 'How to read these rankings'.
This is a data-driven pattern observation based on the signals the engine measures, not investment advice. It does not consider your brand, operations, financing, or market knowledge — verify against a real site visit and your own numbers.
Location & accessibility
Powered by OneMapImmediate catchment
A dense immediate catchment — about 21,780 residents within the primary ring.
Residents are area-weighted estimates assuming uniform density within each subzone (Census 2020).
Public transport access
The nearest MRT station is ANG MO KIO INTERCHANGE, estimated within a 0-5-minute walk on the mapped street network.
Estimated walk time is from the site's geocoded coordinate on the mapped street network — not a building entrance. Route and frequency data is outside this tier's scope.
Parking supply
The nearest carpark is about 204m away with 147 lots.
These figures describe parking supply (capacity), not availability — no live occupancy data exists.
Population density
The ANG MO KIO TOWN CENTRE subzone carries about 15,179 residents per km²; roughly 21,780 residents within 500m. Resident density: 43.4/100 against all published Singapore subzones, and ~90th percentile among the 269 commercially zoned peer sites — the catchment is not among Singapore's very densest residential subzones, but it is unusually resident-dense for a commercially zoned peer site.
Resident counts are area-weighted estimates assuming uniform density within each subzone (Census 2020). Resident density is not pedestrian footfall.
Housing mix
The ANG MO KIO TOWN CENTRE subzone's residents live mixed (HDB with a substantial private share) — 59% in HDB flats, 40% in condominiums. The surrounding subzones vary across the same mix.
Dwelling type is a Census 2020 resident-population SHARE by subzone — it is not a household-income or affordability measure, and housing type must not be equated with income.
Nearest anchors
Ranked by demand relevance for a GP Clinic (Heartland) concept: the top anchor is AMK Hub (Mall), 0m away. 5 curated anchor types named within 2km.
Anchors are a curated/licensed subset (MOE/ECDA/curated lists) — not exhaustive; unlisted categories may still exist nearby.
Walk time (OpenRouteService)
Walkable reach is broadly efficient: Within a 10-minute walk the modelled pedestrian network reaches 40,466 residents — 100% of what an equal-area circle would hold. At this scale the network does not produce an unusually constrained catchment relative to that circle; actual entrance routes, crossings and indoor mall circulation remain unverified.
A dense immediate catchment — about 21,780 residents within the primary ring. About 76,311 residents within 1km. The catchment's highest-relevance anchors are AMK Hub and MY FIRST SKOOL — see Anchors mode for the full ranked list.
Verify on site: Walk the primary ring and confirm footfall at the site's main access points.
Transit is a major structural advantage, but proximity to the interchange does not prove passenger flow reaches this unit. The decision turns on entrance placement, shelter, crossings, and whether morning commuters pass the proposed frontage.
Verify on site: Check the actual walking route, shelter and crossing points between the site and the nearest station.
Parking supply is substantial on paper, but it is unlikely to be the site's primary access advantage given the stronger interchange proposition. The nearest carpark's ~204m distance may also reduce convenience for very short visits. Peak occupancy and the route from the carpark entrance remain unmeasured.
Verify on site: Confirm actual lot availability and entry/exit flows at peak hours on site.
High resident density around the site is a supporting factor for a value format, but density does not equal footfall at this specific frontage. What is unmeasured is how much of that density passes this unit rather than dispersing to other outlets.
Verify on site: Observe where pedestrian flow concentrates around the site across dayparts.
A predominantly HDB resident base supports value-led daily visits, but housing mix alone does not predict spending or footfall. What is unmeasured is whether residents choose this unit over nearer coffee shops.
Verify on site: Walk the surrounding estate and confirm the mix of public and private housing you actually observe.
Mall co-location, nearby childcare and school access may reinforce family and weekday demand. The more distant college and park are secondary influences unless their pedestrian routes pass the unit. Which anchor flows actually enter the relevant part of the mall remains to be verified.
Verify on site: Confirm each anchor's operating status and pedestrian connectivity from the site.
The modelled 10-minute pedestrian reach covers a large resident base — a supporting factor — but it is computed from the geocoded point, not a building entrance. Barriers, crossings and indoor mall circulation are unmeasured and could reverse the read.
Verify on site: Walk the actual routes from the site's entrances — the zones here start at the geocoded point, not an entrance.
Powered by OneMap · © Singapore Land Authority
Source: Map: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Subzone boundaries: URA/SingStat
Trade-area catchment
Incremental values per ring — what lives in each band, not cumulative totals. Residents are an area-weighted estimate from subzone totals (estimated from subzone population totals assuming uniform density within each subzone).
1 · Resident catchment
Schematic — rings not drawn to geographic scale (the outer ring spans 1-2km). Residents are incremental per band, area-weighted from Census 2020 subzone totals.
Per-ring detail — transport, schools, land use
How the catchment changes: a circular residential catchment understates non-residential accessibility near a major interchange — transit riders can reach the site from beyond these rings.
Resident density: 43.4/100 against all published Singapore subzones, and ~90th percentile among the 269 commercially zoned peer sites — the catchment is not among Singapore's very densest residential subzones, but it is unusually resident-dense for a commercially zoned peer site.
197,603 total residents within 2km across all three rings · 182 bus stops · 31,218 carpark lots
Resident density by distance from the site (residents per km², cumulative within each radius) — demand concentrates near the site and falls outward.
2 · Walking reach
Walk-time zones from the site's geocoded coordinate via OpenRouteService's pedestrian network — the summary is CUMULATIVE (within N minutes); the cards below are incremental bands (what lives in each zone).
Within a 10-minute walk the modelled pedestrian network reaches 40,466 residents — 100% of what an equal-area circle would hold. At this scale the network does not produce an unusually constrained catchment relative to that circle; actual entrance routes, crossings and indoor mall circulation remain unverified.
Reach percentage compares modelled walk reach against an equal-area circle; it is not capped at 100% (the modelled catchment can exceed the benchmark) and displayed values round to whole percentages.
3 · Land use and demand context
Share of land area by use within each ring — from URA zoning data (see Source below).
Residential use remains dominant from the primary ring through the fringe; commercial land is a minority share even at the site.
Commercial-vs-residential balance: residential use leads throughout (49% vs 15% commercial in the primary ring) — demand here is neighbourhood-led.
Decomposed 'Other': at 0-500m the 'Other' share (32%) is mostly reserve & other (9%), roads & transport (20%), open space & parks (4%); at 500-1000m the 'Other' share (38%) is mostly water (1%), reserve & other (1%), roads & transport (16%); at 1000-2000m the 'Other' share (33%) is mostly water (2%), reserve & other (6%), roads & transport (17%). 'Other' is non-building land in the URA Master Plan 2025 — roads, transport infrastructure, water, open space, reserve sites and uncategorised land. It occupies real area but is not 'land-use character'.
Daypart hypothesis — an inference, not a measured fact. The residential-led mix points to repeat neighbourhood activity across daytime and evening hours; destination demand is more likely to depend on the transit connection than on the immediate land-use mix alone.
A peer land-use benchmark (comparable commercial sites) is not available from the current datasets — this section compares the site against its own surrounding rings instead.
4 · Affluence and housing
ANG MO KIO TOWN CENTRE · Census 2020 dwelling type by subzone
Key conclusion: a lower-income resident base — planning-area household income is 18% below the median planning area, while HDB resale values sit around the middle of HDB towns.
Spending-power evidence — household income
ANG MO KIO has the 2nd-lowest median employed-household income among the 30 published planning areas in Census 2020.
- Census 2020 — a 6-year-old vintage; it does not move with the current economy.
- Planning-area geography (the whole planning area), not subzone and not the catchment.
- Employed households — the published distribution is based on households with at least one employed person.
- This benchmarks the planning area's residents; it is not a direct measurement of the 500m/1km catchment, or of the site's visitors.
Customer & housing composition
Property-market evidence — HDB resale
Measurement: trailing-12-month transaction average; the town figure is Ang Mo Kio's average psf over 750 transactions; the benchmark is the median of the 26 HDB towns' average psf, towns equal-weighted.
The site has a substantial absolute residential catchment — 21,780 residents within 500m and 76,311 within 1km — although its modelled density sits at the 90th percentile of the 269-site commercial benchmark, with 59% of residents in HDB flats. Combined with lower relative affluence (6.7 percentile), this supports a value-volume positioning, while interchange traffic provides an additional non-resident demand source.
The resident base supports value-volume positioning: planning-area income is 18% below the median planning area, with HDB resale values mid-range relative to other towns ($669 psf, 54th percentile of the 26 HDB towns), indicating locational demand rather than stronger consumer spending power.
- Use accessible pricing, bundles and repeat-purchase formats.
- Don't treat the catchment as uniformly low-income — 40% of residents live in condos.
- Interchange traffic introduces demand not represented by resident-income data alone.
Source: Residents: SingStat Census 2020 (modelled allocation) · Transit: LTA · Carparks: HDB/URA · Anchors: curated/MOE/ECDA
Recommended format — GP Clinic (Heartland)
The five weighted categories below sum to GP Clinic (Heartland)'s 99.6/100 fit score — the same contribution math the single-format Feasibility reports show. A category that earns ~0 points is a hard flag even when the headline score clears the bar. 8 formats were assessed at this site; only this one is examined in depth here (the rest are ranked in the next section).
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
Signals behind this category
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| resident population density | 43.4 | 30% | 30.0 |
| elderly population share | 16.2 | 20% | 20.0 |
| children share | 14.3 | 10% | 10.0 |
How easily customers can reach the site without a car
Signals behind this category
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| transit connectivity | 100.0 | 10% | 10.0 |
Whether the site itself is retail-viable
Signals behind this category
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoning suitability | 48.6 | 15% | 14.6 |
Room to enter given nearby competitors
Signals behind this category
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition level | 53.3 | 15% | 15.0 |
Format ranking
How to read the shortlist: a format's percentile ranks this site's score within that format's OWN benchmark sample of comparable sites — and every format's sample is drawn from the SAME commercial-site population (the n shown), so percentiles are the one cross-format-comparable number on this page. A high raw score on an easy format and a lower raw score on a harder format are NOT compared directly; each row states the raw score first and the within-format percentile second, and the ranking is by percentile only.
Full assessment for each format — category breakdown, calibration and competition (six formats)
Site context
Every format below is scored against the SAME shared site signals -- shown here once.
GP Clinic (Heartland)
This site's 99.6/100 sits at the 94th percentile of 269 comparable GP Clinic (Heartland) sites in the reference sample (generated 2026-09-02).
8.8 points above the peer median.
Relative location fit within the modelled comparison corpus — not a probability of approval, profitability, or business success. It only compares sites of the same format.
Market demand60 / 60
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| resident population density | 43.4 | 30% | 30 |
| elderly population share | 16.2 | 20% | 20 |
| children share | 14.3 | 10% | 10 |
Accessibility10 / 10
How easily customers can reach the site without a car
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| transit connectivity | 100 | 10% | 10 |
Site & zoning14.6 / 15
Whether the site itself is retail-viable
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoning suitability | 48.6 | 15% | 14.6 |
Competitive headroom15 / 15
Room to enter given nearby competitors
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition level | 53.3 | 15% | 15 |
Competition (live Google Places data). 7 nearby doctor-category listings matched in our measured category (doctor) within 300m · Moderate (53.3/100). This is a count of Google Places listings in the broad 'doctor' category (GPs, specialists and clinics), not a verified GP-clinic count.
Community Pharmacy
This site's 85.6/100 sits at the 86th percentile of 268 comparable Community Pharmacy sites in the reference sample (generated 2026-09-03).
16.2 points above the peer median.
Relative location fit within the modelled comparison corpus — not a probability of approval, profitability, or business success. It only compares sites of the same format.
Market demand26 / 30
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| resident population density | 43.4 | 30% | 26 |
Accessibility15 / 15
How easily customers can reach the site without a car
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| transit connectivity | 100 | 15% | 15 |
Mall access20 / 30
Mall Proximity leads this category
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| mall proximity | 100 | 20% | 20 |
| hospital proximity | 0 | 10% | 0 |
Site & zoning14.6 / 15
Whether the site itself is retail-viable
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoning suitability | 48.6 | 15% | 14.6 |
Competitive headroom10 / 10
Room to enter given nearby competitors
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition level | 80 | 10% | 10 |
Competition (live Google Places data). 3 nearby pharmacies matched in our measured category (pharmacy) within 300m · Low pressure (80/100).
Dental Clinic
This site's 70.2/100 sits at the 43rd percentile of 269 comparable Dental Clinic sites in the reference sample (generated 2026-09-03).
Broadly in line with the peer median, sitting 4.9 points below it.
Relative location fit within the modelled comparison corpus — not a probability of approval, profitability, or business success. It only compares sites of the same format.
Market demand20.6 / 50
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| resident population density | 43.4 | 20% | 17.3 |
| catchment affluence | 6.7 | 30% | 3.3 |
Mall access20 / 20
Mall Proximity leads this category
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| mall proximity | 100 | 20% | 20 |
Site & zoning14.6 / 15
Whether the site itself is retail-viable
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoning suitability | 48.6 | 15% | 14.6 |
Competitive headroom15 / 15
Room to enter given nearby competitors
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition level | 86.7 | 15% | 15 |
Competition (live Google Places data). 2 nearby dental clinics matched in our measured category (dentist) within 300m · Low pressure (86.7/100).
Aesthetic Clinic
This site's 34.1/100 sits at the 41st percentile of 269 comparable Aesthetic Clinic sites in the reference sample (generated 2026-09-03).
5.9 points below the peer median.
Relative location fit within the modelled comparison corpus — not a probability of approval, profitability, or business success. It only compares sites of the same format.
Market demand4.1 / 40
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| catchment affluence | 6.7 | 40% | 4.1 |
Mall access30 / 60
Mall Proximity leads this category
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| mall proximity | 100 | 30% | 30 |
| tourist/heritage precinct | 0 | 30% | 0 |
Partial basis. This Aesthetic Clinic score of 34.1/100 is a partial basis. Within that measured set, 'mall proximity' accounts for essentially all of the points. Treat it as a directional read on the signals available at this site, not a full multi-factor assessment.
Competition (live Google Places data). 1 nearby aesthetic clinic matched in our measured category (skin_care_clinic) within 300m · Low pressure (93.3/100).
Vet Clinic
This site's 73.5/100 sits at the 34th percentile of 268 comparable Vet Clinic sites in the reference sample (generated 2026-09-06).
8.6 points below the peer median.
Relative location fit within the modelled comparison corpus — not a probability of approval, profitability, or business success. It only compares sites of the same format.
Market demand29 / 55
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| resident population density | 43.4 | 30% | 26 |
| catchment affluence | 6.7 | 25% | 3 |
Accessibility14.9 / 15
How easily customers can reach the site without a car
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| car access | 39.7 | 15% | 14.9 |
Site & zoning14.6 / 15
Whether the site itself is retail-viable
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoning suitability | 48.6 | 15% | 14.6 |
Competitive headroom15 / 15
Room to enter given nearby competitors
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition level | 100 | 15% | 15 |
Competition (live Google Places data). 0 nearby veterinary clinics matched in our measured category (veterinary_care) within 300m · Low pressure (100/100).
TCM Clinic
This site's 62.3/100 sits at the 24th percentile of 268 comparable TCM Clinic sites in the reference sample (generated 2026-09-03).
12.1 points below the peer median.
Relative location fit within the modelled comparison corpus — not a probability of approval, profitability, or business success. It only compares sites of the same format.
Market demand47.7 / 85
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| elderly population share | 16.2 | 35% | 22.7 |
| resident population density | 43.4 | 25% | 21.7 |
| catchment affluence | 6.7 | 25% | 3.3 |
Site & zoning14.6 / 15
Whether the site itself is retail-viable
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoning suitability | 48.6 | 15% | 14.6 |
Competition is not assessed for this format -- Competition is not assessed for this profile -- No sufficiently reliable Google Places type exists for TCM clinics -- zero paid calls were made
Chiropractor
This site's 77.8/100 sits at the 23rd percentile of 269 comparable Chiropractor sites in the reference sample (generated 2026-09-06).
10.8 points below the peer median.
Relative location fit within the modelled comparison corpus — not a probability of approval, profitability, or business success. It only compares sites of the same format.
Market demand28.4 / 50
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| resident population density | 43.4 | 25% | 25 |
| catchment affluence | 6.7 | 25% | 3.3 |
Accessibility15 / 15
How easily customers can reach the site without a car
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| transit connectivity | 100 | 15% | 15 |
Site & zoning19.4 / 20
Whether the site itself is retail-viable
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoning suitability | 48.6 | 20% | 19.4 |
Competitive headroom15 / 15
Room to enter given nearby competitors
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition level | 100 | 15% | 15 |
Competition (live Google Places data). 0 nearby chiropractic clinics matched in our measured category (chiropractor) within 300m · Low pressure (100/100).
GP Clinic (CBD / Office)
This site's 51.3/100 sits at the 14th percentile of 269 comparable GP Clinic (CBD / Office) sites in the reference sample (generated 2026-09-02).
9.0 points below the peer median.
Relative location fit within the modelled comparison corpus — not a probability of approval, profitability, or business success. It only compares sites of the same format.
Market demand5 / 20
The size and spending power of the resident catchment
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| resident population density | 43.4 | 10% | 4.3 |
| catchment affluence | 6.7 | 10% | 0.7 |
Accessibility25 / 25
How easily customers can reach the site without a car
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| transit connectivity | 100 | 25% | 25 |
Workplace density1.3 / 35
Office (Daytime-Worker) Density leads this category
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| office (daytime-worker) density | 1.9 | 35% | 1.3 |
Competitive headroom20 / 20
Room to enter given nearby competitors
| Signal | Value | Weight | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition level | 53.3 | 20% | 20 |
Competition (live Google Places data). 7 nearby doctor-category listings matched in our measured category (doctor) within 300m · Moderate (53.3/100). This is a count of Google Places listings in the broad 'doctor' category (GPs, specialists and clinics), not a verified GP-clinic count.
Competitive landscape
Competition is measured per format against the format's own Google Places category (6 distinct measured settings for this category — each one a live call at generation, never re-run on view). A count is what that category returned within its radius, never a whole-market count.
Competition is not assessed for:
- TCM Clinic — Competition is not assessed for this profile -- No sufficiently reliable Google Places type exists for TCM clinics -- zero paid calls were made
Field-verification checklist
Desktop analysis narrows the shortlist; these checks confirm the top choice on the ground before you commit.
- Walk the pedestrian route from ANG MO KIO INTERCHANGE MRT to the unit at peak and off-peak to confirm flow and visibility reach the site.
- Conduct a lease, rent, and unit-configuration feasibility check against the format's operating model.
- Confirm any licensing or regulatory approvals for YOUR intended use directly with the relevant authorities — this report does not screen regulatory or premises-use requirements.
- Visit at peak and off-peak times to observe actual footfall, queueing and the immediate tenant mix before committing.
How to read these rankings & methodology
How to read these rankings
Each format below is scored against ITS OWN profile's expectations — its own signal weights and category calibration — so raw scores across different formats are NOT on a directly comparable scale, and a higher raw number does NOT mean 'better fit for this site' across rows. Cross-format comparison should be read on each member's percentile where one is shown: a percentile ranks this site's score within that format's own historical benchmark sample of comparable commercial sites, drawn from the SAME commercial-site population for every format (so percentiles ARE comparable across rows, even though the raw scores are not) — 'this site ranks higher among GP-clinic sites than among dental sites' is a meaningful statement; 'a higher raw score across formats' is not. A percentile is relative to that sample (see the sample size and date), not an absolute claim of commercial success. A format without a benchmark corpus shows its raw score only, with no percentile.
Methodology
Signals: SingStat Census 2020 · LTA transit · URA Master Plan 2025 · MOE/ECDA · curated lists. Competition: Google Places Aggregate (count only, live at generation) — Shared site signals are computed once for all formats; 6 distinct measured competition settings → 6 live Google Places call(s) at generation.. Calibration model version: v5-step20. This report is a data- driven pattern observation, not investment, legal or licensing advice.