77.3% of counties currently share a component value of 60.
Formula transparency
Freedom Score Sensitivity Report
See where the seven weighted Freedom Score inputs vary, concentrate at a common value, reach a calculation floor or ceiling, or use a documented fallback. This report diagnoses the current formula; it does not silently rewrite county scores.
County records3,143
Formula inputs7
Formula weight100%
Distinct scores67
State holds2
What this test measures
Concentration, Fallbacks, And Observed Influence
A concentrated component is not automatically wrong. It may reflect a genuinely similar county signal, a coarse input scale, incomplete source depth, or a formula boundary. The table keeps those possibilities separate so methodology changes require evidence instead of intuition.
- Most common
- The component value shared by the largest number of counties.
- At floor / ceiling
- Counties reaching the component's published calculation boundary.
- Fallback
- Counties where a documented substitute is used because the direct input is unavailable.
- Observed influence
- The component's national value range multiplied by its formula weight.
Current findings
What Deserves The Closest Review
40 counties (1.3%) use this component's fallback path.
527 distinct one-decimal formula results become 67 published whole-number scores.
Diagnostics identify research priorities. They do not justify changing a county value without stronger source evidence and versioned backtesting.
Seven weighted inputs
National Component Sensitivity
Counts use all 3,143 current county records. The maximum observed influence is not a replacement weight; it shows how much of the whole score the component's current national range can move.
| Component | Weight | Observed range | Distinct values | Most common | At floor | At ceiling | Fallback | Flat states | Observed influence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiny home | 25% | 20-100 | 5 | 60 77.3% | 82 2.6% | 1 0% | 0 0% | 2/50 | 20 pts |
| RV living | 20% | 20-80 | 4 | 60 62.7% | 266 8.5% | 0 0% | 0 0% | 1/50 | 12 pts |
| Off-grid | 20% | 20-100 | 5 | 60 47.8% | 139 4.4% | 728 23.2% | 0 0% | 1/50 | 16 pts |
| Land affordability | 15% | 20-100 | 619 | 20 55% | 1,729 55% | 69 2.2% | 40 1.3% | 6/50 | 12 pts |
| Property tax | 10% | 20-100 | 87 | 20 17.9% | 563 17.9% | 208 6.6% | 1 0% | 1/50 | 8 pts |
| Solar potential | 5% | 10-100 | 10 | 40 15.8% | 118 3.8% | 178 5.7% | 0 0% | 6/50 | 4.5 pts |
| Broadband availability | 5% | 20-100 | 9 | 80 37.9% | 0 0% | 71 2.3% | 0 0% | 4/50 | 4 pts |
“Flat states” counts states where every county currently shares the same component value. A fallback count can overlap a floor or ceiling count because those columns answer different questions.
Land affordability deep dive
Who Reaches The Current Land-Price Floor
The current land component awards 100 at or below $2,500 per acre, declines linearly, and reaches its 20-point floor at $25,000 per acre. The floor cohort below uses the exact calculation boundary, not a rounded display value.
Exact floor cohort1,72955% of counties
Priced floor rows1,689Direct price input
Usable samples1,5978+ listings
Thin samples92Price present, under 8
Fallback floor rows40No price input
Virginia has the largest floor cohort by count (108 counties), while Connecticut has the largest state share (100%).
Because 1,597 floor rows already clear the public 8-listing sample rule, the national concentration cannot be explained mainly by missing or thin inventory snapshots.
View the floor cohort across all 50 states
| State | Floor counties | State share | Usable sample | Thin sample | Fallback | Median priced floor row |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | 108/133 | 81.2% | 105 | 2 | 1 | $90,195 |
| Georgia | 94/159 | 59.1% | 94 | 0 | 0 | $62,913 |
| Texas | 93/254 | 36.6% | 88 | 3 | 2 | $46,275 |
| Iowa | 83/99 | 83.8% | 79 | 4 | 0 | $67,470 |
| Indiana | 79/92 | 85.9% | 76 | 3 | 0 | $84,773 |
| North Carolina | 70/100 | 70% | 70 | 0 | 0 | $50,400 |
| Illinois | 70/102 | 68.6% | 61 | 9 | 0 | $58,609 |
| Minnesota | 66/87 | 75.9% | 61 | 5 | 0 | $74,180 |
| Ohio | 65/88 | 73.9% | 59 | 6 | 0 | $91,250 |
| Michigan | 60/83 | 72.3% | 60 | 0 | 0 | $55,915 |
| Florida | 55/67 | 82.1% | 55 | 0 | 0 | $95,512 |
| Pennsylvania | 55/67 | 82.1% | 54 | 1 | 0 | $58,423 |
| Tennessee | 51/95 | 53.7% | 51 | 0 | 0 | $42,585 |
| Wisconsin | 49/72 | 68.1% | 49 | 0 | 0 | $77,091 |
| South Dakota | 46/66 | 69.7% | 28 | 10 | 8 | $73,909 |
| Nebraska | 44/93 | 47.3% | 32 | 10 | 2 | $66,230 |
| Kentucky | 43/120 | 35.8% | 42 | 1 | 0 | $39,609 |
| Missouri | 39/115 | 33.9% | 37 | 2 | 0 | $42,008 |
| New York | 38/62 | 61.3% | 38 | 0 | 0 | $64,608 |
| California | 32/58 | 55.2% | 30 | 1 | 1 | $89,425 |
| Kansas | 32/105 | 30.5% | 25 | 5 | 2 | $57,583 |
| Louisiana | 31/64 | 48.4% | 31 | 0 | 0 | $75,833 |
| South Carolina | 30/46 | 65.2% | 30 | 0 | 0 | $45,762 |
| North Dakota | 27/53 | 50.9% | 9 | 13 | 5 | $71,557 |
| Colorado | 26/64 | 40.6% | 26 | 0 | 0 | $48,872 |
| Washington | 24/39 | 61.5% | 19 | 3 | 2 | $95,366 |
| Maryland | 23/24 | 95.8% | 23 | 0 | 0 | $194,661 |
| Idaho | 23/44 | 52.3% | 23 | 0 | 0 | $69,811 |
| Alaska | 22/30 | 73.3% | 6 | 10 | 6 | $84,072 |
| Alabama | 22/67 | 32.8% | 22 | 0 | 0 | $34,556 |
| New Jersey | 21/21 | 100% | 21 | 0 | 0 | $286,786 |
| Oregon | 19/36 | 52.8% | 19 | 0 | 0 | $49,640 |
| Montana | 19/56 | 33.9% | 10 | 1 | 8 | $40,000 |
| Utah | 17/29 | 58.6% | 16 | 1 | 0 | $128,195 |
| Arkansas | 15/75 | 20% | 15 | 0 | 0 | $43,622 |
| Mississippi | 15/82 | 18.3% | 15 | 0 | 0 | $42,022 |
| Massachusetts | 14/14 | 100% | 14 | 0 | 0 | $391,152 |
| West Virginia | 14/55 | 25.5% | 13 | 1 | 0 | $46,495 |
| Vermont | 12/14 | 85.7% | 12 | 0 | 0 | $54,617 |
| New Mexico | 11/33 | 33.3% | 8 | 1 | 2 | $44,784 |
| Maine | 10/16 | 62.5% | 10 | 0 | 0 | $45,161 |
| Connecticut | 9/9 | 100% | 9 | 0 | 0 | $269,932 |
| New Hampshire | 9/10 | 90% | 9 | 0 | 0 | $73,079 |
| Oklahoma | 9/77 | 11.7% | 9 | 0 | 0 | $38,881 |
| Wyoming | 8/23 | 34.8% | 8 | 0 | 0 | $46,992 |
| Arizona | 7/15 | 46.7% | 7 | 0 | 0 | $42,632 |
| Nevada | 7/17 | 41.2% | 7 | 0 | 0 | $32,456 |
| Hawaii | 5/5 | 100% | 4 | 0 | 1 | $308,778 |
| Rhode Island | 5/5 | 100% | 5 | 0 | 0 | $616,370 |
| Delaware | 3/3 | 100% | 3 | 0 | 0 | $124,481 |
Read-only stress test
What Wider Price Bands Would Change
These scenarios keep the $2,500 ceiling point, the 20-100 land scale, every other formula input, and the 15% land weight unchanged. Only the price where the land component reaches 20 moves. The results are diagnostics, not proposed scores or published rankings.
| Floor price | Floor counties | Distinct land values | Published scores changed | Average score change | Average changed-row movement | Maximum movement | Most affected state |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $25,000Current formula | 1,729 55% | 619 | 0 0% | 0 pts | 0 pts | 0 pts | Baseline |
| $35,000Diagnostic scenario | 1,399 44.5% | 664 | 1,384 44% | +0.85 pts | +1.92 pts | +4 pts | Alabama (+1.45) |
| $50,000Diagnostic scenario | 1,077 34.3% | 677 | 1,797 57.2% | +1.85 pts | +3.23 pts | +7 pts | Alabama (+3.03) |
| $75,000Diagnostic scenario | 758 24.1% | 669 | 2,163 68.8% | +3.01 pts | +4.38 pts | +9 pts | Maine (+4.5) |
No production county score, ranking, or downloadable field changed. Even the widest scenario would change 2,163 published county scores, so any real adjustment requires a versioned national backtest, ranking review, and public changelog entry.
Review land-market sample statusNational ordering check
How Wider Bands Would Reshuffle Score Ranks
These diagnostics use score-band ranks: counties with the same whole-number Freedom Score share a rank. That avoids presenting alphabetical tie order as meaningful movement. A positive change means a county would move into a higher national score band.
$35,000 floor scenario2,98194.8% change score-band rank
- Average absolute move
- 72.05 places
- Counties rising
- 1,119
- Counties passed
- 1,862
- Largest rise
- +521 places
- Largest regional lift
- South +1
- Regional lift spread
- 0.42 pts
$50,000 floor scenario3,02396.2% change score-band rank
- Average absolute move
- 132.32 places
- Counties rising
- 1,261
- Counties passed
- 1,762
- Largest rise
- +574 places
- Largest regional lift
- South +2.14
- Regional lift spread
- 0.77 pts
| Scenario | Site region | Counties | Scores changed | Average score change | Ranks changed | Average absolute rank move | Rising / passed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $35,000 | West | 449 | 196 43.7% | +0.82 pts | 428 | 62.54 places | 165 / 263 |
| $35,000 | Midwest | 1,055 | 408 38.7% | +0.72 pts | 1,004 | 70.37 places | 310 / 694 |
| $35,000 | South | 1,394 | 715 51.3% | +1 pts | 1,354 | 79.91 places | 586 / 768 |
| $35,000 | Northeast | 245 | 65 26.5% | +0.58 pts | 195 | 51.99 places | 58 / 137 |
| $50,000 | West | 449 | 253 56.3% | +1.76 pts | 436 | 116 places | 181 / 255 |
| $50,000 | Midwest | 1,055 | 531 50.3% | +1.61 pts | 1,023 | 135.02 places | 356 / 667 |
| $50,000 | South | 1,394 | 920 66% | +2.14 pts | 1,364 | 139.43 places | 647 / 717 |
| $50,000 | Northeast | 245 | 93 38% | +1.37 pts | 200 | 110.14 places | 77 / 123 |
“Site region” follows the four navigation groups used throughout County Freedom Index; it is not presented as a legal, climate, or regulatory classification.
Inspect the largest score-band moves under the $35,000 scenario
Largest Upward Shifts
Counties gaining the most relative position as their land component becomes more differentiated.
| County | Score | Rank | Shift |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atascosa County, TX | 53 → 57 | 2,371 → 1,850 | +521 |
| Miller County, GA | 54 → 58 | 2,222 → 1,732 | +490 |
| Tom Green County, TX | 54 → 58 | 2,222 → 1,732 | +490 |
| Lexington city, VA | 54 → 58 | 2,222 → 1,732 | +490 |
| Atchison County, KS | 52 → 56 | 2,445 → 2,008 | +437 |
| Owen County, IN | 55 → 59 | 2,063 → 1,630 | +433 |
| Louisa County, IA | 55 → 59 | 2,063 → 1,630 | +433 |
| Grant County, KY | 55 → 59 | 2,063 → 1,630 | +433 |
Largest Relative Declines
These counties do not lose score; they are passed by counties receiving a larger diagnostic increase.
| County | Score | Rank | Shift |
|---|---|---|---|
| Houston County, AL | 60 → 60 | 1,395 → 1,552 | -157 |
| Marshall County, AL | 60 → 60 | 1,395 → 1,552 | -157 |
| Pinal County, AZ | 60 → 60 | 1,395 → 1,552 | -157 |
| El Dorado County, CA | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,732 | -157 |
| Marin County, CA | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,732 | -157 |
| Sonoma County, CA | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,732 | -157 |
| Ventura County, CA | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,732 | -157 |
| La Plata County, CO | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,732 | -157 |
Inspect the largest score-band moves under the $50,000 scenario
Largest Upward Shifts
Counties gaining the most relative position as their land component becomes more differentiated.
| County | Score | Rank | Shift |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miller County, GA | 54 → 61 | 2,222 → 1,648 | +574 |
| Crisp County, GA | 53 → 59 | 2,371 → 1,811 | +560 |
| Decatur County, GA | 53 → 59 | 2,371 → 1,811 | +560 |
| Lamar County, MS | 53 → 59 | 2,371 → 1,811 | +560 |
| Atascosa County, TX | 53 → 59 | 2,371 → 1,811 | +560 |
| Caldwell County, TX | 53 → 59 | 2,371 → 1,811 | +560 |
| Palo Pinto County, TX | 53 → 59 | 2,371 → 1,811 | +560 |
| Taylor County, TX | 53 → 59 | 2,371 → 1,811 | +560 |
Largest Relative Declines
These counties do not lose score; they are passed by counties receiving a larger diagnostic increase.
| County | Score | Rank | Shift |
|---|---|---|---|
| El Dorado County, CA | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,911 | -336 |
| Marin County, CA | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,911 | -336 |
| Ventura County, CA | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,911 | -336 |
| Bay County, FL | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,911 | -336 |
| Citrus County, FL | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,911 | -336 |
| Escambia County, FL | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,911 | -336 |
| Okaloosa County, FL | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,911 | -336 |
| Santa Rosa County, FL | 58 → 58 | 1,575 → 1,911 | -336 |
Ranking movement is a review signal, not evidence that a wider threshold is more accurate. The scenarios still depend on active-listing samples and should be checked against source quality, geography, and state-level market differences before any methodology proposal.
Evidence review queue
Where Land-Market Review Should Start
This queue uses the $50,000 stress test to identify high-impact records for source and comparability review. It does not mark those records wrong. Usable samples still need methodology review when a hypothetical threshold would materially change scores or national ordering.
Dated snapshots3,143All county records
Source labels5Platforms and collection variants
Oldest snapshotJun 3, 2026Current inventory cycle
Newest snapshotAug 16, 2026Current inventory cycle
| Source label | Counties | Usable samples | Thin samples | Missing prices | Snapshot range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LandSearch | 1,668 | 1,630 | 24 | 14 | Jun 3, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| LandWatch | 1,433 | 1,232 | 175 | 26 | Jun 5, 2026 to Aug 5, 2026 |
| Land.com | 28 | 28 | 0 | 0 | Aug 5, 2026 to Aug 7, 2026 |
| LandWatch municipality-page rollup | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | Jun 24, 2026 |
| LandSearch county land-for-sale page | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | Jun 18, 2026 |
State priorities
Largest High-Impact Review Cohorts
A “high-impact” county gains at least three whole Freedom Score points in the read-only $50,000 scenario.
| State | High-impact counties | Scores changed | Current floor cohort | Average score lift | Average rank movement | Usable / thin / missing | Snapshot range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | 112 | 178/254 | 93 | +2.22 pts | 130.85 places | 240 / 12 / 2 | Jun 11, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| Missouri | 60 | 99/115 | 39 | +2.77 pts | 119.37 places | 113 / 2 / 0 | Jun 11, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| Kentucky | 60 | 96/120 | 43 | +2.67 pts | 118.48 places | 119 / 1 / 0 | Jun 11, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| Tennessee | 53 | 72/95 | 51 | +2.72 pts | 137.47 places | 95 / 0 / 0 | Aug 15, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| North Carolina | 51 | 63/100 | 70 | +2.56 pts | 188.08 places | 100 / 0 / 0 | Aug 15, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| Georgia | 44 | 90/159 | 94 | +1.71 pts | 166.34 places | 157 / 2 / 0 | Jun 12, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| Alabama | 41 | 58/67 | 22 | +3.03 pts | 122.99 places | 67 / 0 / 0 | Jun 11, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| Illinois | 35 | 55/102 | 70 | +1.71 pts | 126.03 places | 83 / 19 / 0 | Jun 12, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| Michigan | 33 | 45/83 | 60 | +2.17 pts | 171.22 places | 83 / 0 / 0 | Jun 12, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
| Oklahoma | 32 | 58/77 | 9 | +2.34 pts | 81.74 places | 77 / 0 / 0 | Jun 5, 2026 to Aug 15, 2026 |
| Virginia | 31 | 44/133 | 108 | +1.17 pts | 180.83 places | 130 / 2 / 1 | Jun 14, 2026 |
| Arkansas | 30 | 69/75 | 15 | +2.51 pts | 91.61 places | 75 / 0 / 0 | Jun 11, 2026 to Aug 16, 2026 |
Inspect the 20 highest-impact county source checks
| County | Price / acre | Listings | Sample | Source | Snapshot | Score change | Rank change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miller County, GA | $25,873 | 22 | Usable | LandWatch | Jun 12, 2026 | 54 → 61 +7 pts | 2,222 → 1,648 +574 |
| Grant County, KY | $24,563 | 12 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 16, 2026 | 55 → 62 +7 pts | 2,063 → 1,548 +515 |
| Cherokee County, OK | $24,739 | 405 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 15, 2026 | 57 → 64 +7 pts | 1,707 → 1,339 +368 |
| Johnson County, NE | $25,364 | 18 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 5, 2026 | 58 → 65 +7 pts | 1,575 → 1,221 +354 |
| Laurens County, SC | $25,090 | 206 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 16, 2026 | 58 → 65 +7 pts | 1,575 → 1,221 +354 |
| Sierra County, NM | $25,835 | 19 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 15, 2026 | 75 → 82 +7 pts | 356 → 136 +220 |
| Jeff Davis County, TX | $25,729 | 70 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 16, 2026 | 76 → 83 +7 pts | 299 → 116 +183 |
| Paulding County, OH | $27,218 | 3 | Thin | LandWatch | Jun 12, 2026 | 52 → 58 +6 pts | 2,445 → 1,911 +534 |
| Ford County, IL | $25,637 | 4 | Thin | LandWatch | Jun 12, 2026 | 54 → 60 +6 pts | 2,222 → 1,724 +498 |
| Washington County, IL | $26,826 | 5 | Thin | LandWatch | Jun 12, 2026 | 54 → 60 +6 pts | 2,222 → 1,724 +498 |
| Nome Census Area, AK | $26,646 | 5 | Thin | LandWatch | Jun 14, 2026 | 67 → 73 +6 pts | 835 → 576 +259 |
| Oliver County, ND | $28,553 | 1 | Thin | LandWatch | Jun 11, 2026 | 68 → 74 +6 pts | 762 → 523 +239 |
| Dunn County, ND | $24,123 | 5 | Thin | LandWatch | Jun 11, 2026 | 74 → 80 +6 pts | 419 → 216 +203 |
| Crisp County, GA | $25,444 | 109 | Usable | LandWatch | Jun 12, 2026 | 53 → 59 +6 pts | 2,371 → 1,811 +560 |
| Decatur County, GA | $28,000 | 108 | Usable | LandWatch | Jun 12, 2026 | 53 → 59 +6 pts | 2,371 → 1,811 +560 |
| Lamar County, MS | $25,644 | 78 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 16, 2026 | 53 → 59 +6 pts | 2,371 → 1,811 +560 |
| Atascosa County, TX | $22,529 | 218 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 16, 2026 | 53 → 59 +6 pts | 2,371 → 1,811 +560 |
| Caldwell County, TX | $27,207 | 163 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 16, 2026 | 53 → 59 +6 pts | 2,371 → 1,811 +560 |
| Palo Pinto County, TX | $29,024 | 582 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 15, 2026 | 53 → 59 +6 pts | 2,371 → 1,811 +560 |
| Taylor County, TX | $27,009 | 422 | Usable | LandSearch | Aug 15, 2026 | 53 → 59 +6 pts | 2,371 → 1,811 +560 |
The queue separates two questions: whether a snapshot has enough listings, and whether active-listing price-per-acre is comparable enough across states to support a national threshold. Missing-price fallbacks remain visible in the floor-cohort table above because the stress test intentionally leaves that fallback unchanged.
State-relative normalization test
Would Within-State Percentiles Fix Regional Bias?
This read-only test maps the lowest usable county price in each eligible state to a 100 land score and the highest to 20, with tied prices sharing a midpoint rank. States need at least 8 usable county samples; thin and missing rows retain their current component value.
No, not by themselves.
Pure state percentiles center every eligible state near the same 60-point average land component. That creates useful within-state contrast, but it erases absolute cost differences between states and disproportionately lifts counties in expensive markets.
Eligible states473 small-state holds
Modeled counties2,891Usable samples only
Scores changed2,51687% of modeled rows
Average score change+2.763.07 pts absolute
Regional spread3.07Average modeled points
Only usable county price samples establish the percentile distribution.
Lowest price receives 100, highest receives 20, and ties share a midpoint.
Thin, missing, and small-state rows keep their current land component.
No profile, ranking, download, or published score uses this scenario.
| Site region | Modeled counties | Scores changed | Increased / decreased | Average score change | Average absolute change | Average rank movement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West | 387 | 329 | 253 / 76 | +1.78 pts | 2.3 pts | 139.58 places |
| Midwest | 899 | 833 | 785 / 48 | +3.46 pts | 3.69 pts | 209.99 places |
| South | 1,369 | 1,134 | 1,000 / 134 | +2.21 pts | 2.58 pts | 189.94 places |
| Northeast | 236 | 220 | 220 / 0 | +4.85 pts | 4.85 pts | 208.21 places |
Largest state effects
Where Relative Pricing Changes The Formula Most
States are ordered by average absolute whole-score movement, not by a recommendation to adopt the model.
| State | Benchmark counties | Median benchmark price | Current floor cohort | Scores changed | Increased / decreased | Average score change | Current / relative land average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | 9/9 | $269,932 | 9 | 8 | 8 / 0 | +6.22 pts | 20 → 60 |
| New Jersey | 21/21 | $286,786 | 21 | 20 | 20 / 0 | +5.81 pts | 20 → 60 |
| Massachusetts | 14/14 | $391,152 | 14 | 12 | 12 / 0 | +5.79 pts | 20 → 60 |
| Maryland | 24/24 | $182,947 | 23 | 23 | 23 / 0 | +5.75 pts | 22.2 → 60 |
| New Hampshire | 10/10 | $67,820 | 9 | 9 | 9 / 0 | +5.7 pts | 20.8 → 60 |
| Vermont | 14/14 | $49,131 | 12 | 12 | 12 / 0 | +5.57 pts | 21.9 → 60 |
| Indiana | 89/92 | $72,024 | 79 | 85 | 85 / 0 | +5.46 pts | 24.2 → 60 |
| Iowa | 94/99 | $56,751 | 83 | 90 | 90 / 0 | +4.97 pts | 26.3 → 60 |
| Virginia | 130/133 | $76,125 | 108 | 126 | 126 / 0 | +4.93 pts | 27.3 → 60 |
| Pennsylvania | 66/67 | $49,117 | 55 | 63 | 63 / 0 | +4.92 pts | 26.2 → 60 |
| North Carolina | 100/100 | $36,051 | 70 | 95 | 95 / 0 | +4.91 pts | 27.7 → 60 |
| Florida | 67/67 | $66,629 | 55 | 64 | 64 / 0 | +4.87 pts | 27.9 → 60 |
View the 3 states held from this diagnostic
Largest Modeled Increases
Lower-priced counties inside expensive states receive the largest lift.
| County | Price / acre | Land score | Freedom Score | Rank change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warren County, NJ | $29,344 | 20 → 100 | 54 → 66 +12 | +1181 |
| Berkshire County, MA | $57,057 | 20 → 100 | 59 → 71 +12 | +824 |
| Northwest Hills Planning Region, CT | $157,407 | 20 → 100 | 24 → 36 +12 | +124 |
| Allegany County, MD | $50,492 | 20 → 93 | 55 → 66 +11 | +1022 |
| Wicomico County, MD | $28,814 | 20 → 96.5 | 55 → 66 +11 | +1022 |
| Worcester County, MD | $58,917 | 20 → 89.6 | 55 → 66 +11 | +1022 |
| Windham County, VT | $24,906 | 20.3 → 93.8 | 58 → 69 +11 | +806 |
| Franklin County, MA | $67,568 | 20 → 93.8 | 59 → 70 +11 | +761 |
| Coos County, NH | $22,774 | 27.9 → 100 | 67 → 78 +11 | +548 |
| Gloucester County, NJ | $73,147 | 20 → 96 | 42 → 53 +11 | +211 |
Largest Modeled Decreases
Counties that are cheap nationally but mid-priced within a cheaper state lose ground.
| County | Price / acre | Land score | Freedom Score | Rank change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marshall County, MS | $6,500 | 85.8 → 55.5 | 66 → 61 -5 | -801 |
| Panola County, MS | $7,029 | 83.9 → 54 | 66 → 61 -5 | -801 |
| Copiah County, MS | $6,500 | 85.8 → 55.5 | 68 → 63 -5 | -670 |
| Yazoo County, MS | $7,333 | 82.8 → 53 | 70 → 65 -5 | -549 |
| Coahoma County, MS | $8,719 | 77.9 → 50 | 63 → 59 -4 | -860 |
| Marion County, MS | $10,000 | 73.3 → 48.5 | 65 → 61 -4 | -722 |
| Neshoba County, MS | $10,000 | 73.3 → 48.5 | 65 → 61 -4 | -722 |
| Oktibbeha County, MS | $6,410 | 86.1 → 57 | 65 → 61 -4 | -722 |
| Covington County, MS | $8,500 | 78.7 → 52 | 66 → 62 -4 | -664 |
| Montgomery County, MS | $6,234 | 86.7 → 58 | 67 → 63 -4 | -597 |
The test shows that national price and within-state position answer different questions. A future methodology could display both, but replacing absolute affordability with state percentiles would hide meaningful interstate cost differences and create a new regional bias.
Hybrid affordability backtest
Can National Price And State Context Work Together?
These read-only scenarios blend the current national land component with the within-state percentile signal above. Only the 2,891 usable county samples are blended; the 252 protected rows keep their current land component.
Most conservative result75% national / 25% within-state
This blend preserves most of the national affordability signal while reducing average rank movement by 73% and regional spread by 78.2% compared with pure within-state percentiles. It is a stronger research candidate, but it is not ready for production use.
Preserves interstate cost differences.
Adds local-market position for eligible samples.
The blended land score still carries the existing 15% Freedom Score weight.
| Scenario | Scores changed | Average score change | Average absolute score change | Ranks changed | Average rank movement | Regional spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current published model Baseline | 0 | 0 pts | 0 pts | 0 | 0 places | 0 pts |
| Pure within-state Diagnostic above | 2,516 | +2.76 pts | 3.07 pts | 3,140 | 188.66 places | 3.07 pts |
| 75% national / 25% within-stateConservative candidate | 1,686 53.6% | +0.66 pts | 0.75 pts | 3,036 96.6% | 50.85 places 73% below pure | 0.67 pts 78.2% below pure |
| 70% national / 30% within-stateStronger state context | 1,855 59% | +0.81 pts | 0.91 pts | 3,130 99.6% | 61.16 places 67.6% below pure | 0.86 pts 72% below pure |
Regional comparison
Where Each Blend Still Moves Scores
Lower spread is useful, but the Northeast still receives the largest average lift under both blends.
| Scenario | Site region | Modeled counties | Scores changed | Increased / decreased | Average score change | Average rank movement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75/25 | West | 387 | 194 | 175 / 19 | +0.44 pts | 33.8 places |
| 75/25 | Midwest | 899 | 594 | 565 / 29 | +0.83 pts | 58.86 places |
| 75/25 | South | 1,369 | 723 | 654 / 69 | +0.54 pts | 52.33 places |
| 75/25 | Northeast | 236 | 175 | 175 / 0 | +1.11 pts | 51.94 places |
| 70/30 | West | 387 | 218 | 192 / 26 | +0.53 pts | 41.46 places |
| 70/30 | Midwest | 899 | 648 | 612 / 36 | +1.01 pts | 71.99 places |
| 70/30 | South | 1,369 | 803 | 727 / 76 | +0.66 pts | 61.44 places |
| 70/30 | Northeast | 236 | 186 | 186 / 0 | +1.39 pts | 65.11 places |
Largest 75/25 Increases
The conservative blend caps the largest modeled whole-score lift at 3 points.
| County | Land score | Freedom Score | Rank change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jennings County, IN | 20 → 36.4 | 55 → 58 +3 | +356 |
| Owen County, IN | 24.8 → 40.9 | 55 → 58 +3 | +356 |
| Louisa County, IA | 20 → 36.8 | 55 → 58 +3 | +356 |
| Winneshiek County, IA | 20 → 36.1 | 55 → 58 +3 | +356 |
| Allegany County, MD | 20 → 38.3 | 55 → 58 +3 | +356 |
| Worcester County, MD | 20 → 37.4 | 55 → 58 +3 | +356 |
| Westmoreland County, VA | 20 → 34.3 | 55 → 58 +3 | +356 |
| Lawrence County, IN | 20 → 34.8 | 54 → 57 +3 | +331 |
Largest 75/25 Decreases
The largest modeled decrease is -2 points, concentrated among counties that are cheap nationally but less exceptional within-state.
| County | Land score | Freedom Score | Rank change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panola County, MS | 83.9 → 76.4 | 66 → 64 -2 | -192 |
| Osage County, KS | 79.7 → 75.2 | 63 → 62 -1 | -133 |
| Coahoma County, MS | 77.9 → 70.9 | 63 → 62 -1 | -133 |
| Tishomingo County, MS | 51.1 → 49.1 | 63 → 62 -1 | -133 |
| Garfield County, OK | 73.1 → 69.8 | 63 → 62 -1 | -133 |
| McIntosh County, OK | 65.5 → 62.6 | 63 → 62 -1 | -133 |
| Okmulgee County, OK | 67.6 → 64.6 | 63 → 62 -1 | -133 |
| Union County, AR | 67.3 → 65.5 | 64 → 63 -1 | -125 |
The 75/25 blend is the less disruptive candidate in this limited comparison, not an approved methodology. Before any adoption, the state-context signal still needs source quality review, alternative weighting tests, score-band stability checks, and public versioning. Current profiles, rankings, maps, and downloads remain unchanged.
Capped local-context test
Would A Smaller State Adjustment Improve Stability?
These scenarios keep the 75/25 blend but cap the within-state contribution before it reaches the land component. A ±5 cap and a ±10 cap are compared with the uncapped 75/25 result; protected counties continue to retain their published inputs.
Most stable tested result75/25 blend with ±5 cap
The ±5 cap reduces average rank movement by 18.3% and regional spread by 74.6% compared with the uncapped 75/25 blend. It limits every modeled whole-score change to one point, but it still changes the distribution of score bands enough to move most competition ranks.
Adjustment cap±5Land-component points
Adjustments capped1,20041.5% of modeled rows
Scores changed1,40044.5% of all counties
Average rank move41.55Places, absolute
Regional spread0.17Average modeled points
| Scenario | Rows reaching cap | Scores changed | Average absolute score change | Maximum whole-score change | Ranks changed | Average rank movement | Regional spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncapped 75/25 Hybrid baseline | Not capped | 1,686 | 0.75 pts | +3 / -2 | 3,036 | 50.85 places | 0.67 pts |
| 75/25 blend with ±5 capStability candidate | 1,200 41.5% modeled | 1,400 44.5% | 0.48 pts | +1 / -1 | 3,105 98.8% | 41.55 places 18.3% below uncapped | 0.17 pts 74.6% below uncapped |
| 75/25 blend with ±10 capWider adjustment | 443 15.3% modeled | 1,686 53.6% | 0.69 pts | +2 / -2 | 3,128 99.5% | 45.67 places 10.2% below uncapped | 0.52 pts 22.4% below uncapped |
Preferred cap by region
Smaller Average Effects, Persistent Distribution Movement
Every region stays below a one-point average absolute score change, while rank-band populations still shift nationally.
| Site region | Modeled counties | Scores changed | Increased / decreased | Average score change | Average absolute change | Average rank movement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West | 387 | 168 | 149 / 19 | +0.34 pts | 0.43 pts | 31.37 places |
| Midwest | 899 | 481 | 452 / 29 | +0.47 pts | 0.54 pts | 46.92 places |
| South | 1,369 | 630 | 563 / 67 | +0.36 pts | 0.46 pts | 45.37 places |
| Northeast | 236 | 121 | 121 / 0 | +0.51 pts | 0.51 pts | 34.59 places |
Illustrative One-Point Increases
These examples show where a capped local signal still changes the published whole-number result.
| County | Context adjustment | Land score | Freedom Score | Rank change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pima County, AZ | +4.3 | 20 → 24.3 | 49 → 50 | +79 |
| St. Joseph County, IN | +5 | 20 → 25 | 49 → 50 | +79 |
| Floyd County, IA | +5 | 20 → 25 | 49 → 50 | +79 |
| Hancock County, ME | +5 | 20 → 25 | 49 → 50 | +79 |
| Calhoun County, MI | +5 | 20 → 25 | 49 → 50 | +79 |
| Dickinson County, MI | +5 | 20 → 25 | 49 → 50 | +79 |
Illustrative One-Point Decreases
Nationally cheap counties can still lose a point when their price is less favorable within-state.
| County | Context adjustment | Land score | Freedom Score | Rank change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Union County, AR | -1.8 | 67.3 → 65.5 | 64 → 63 | -120 |
| Wilson County, KS | -4.3 | 82.2 → 77.9 | 64 → 63 | -120 |
| Leflore County, MS | -5 | 91.7 → 86.7 | 64 → 63 | -120 |
| Creek County, OK | -3 | 71 → 68 | 64 → 63 | -120 |
| Osage County, KS | -4.5 | 79.7 → 75.2 | 63 → 62 | -119 |
| Coahoma County, MS | -5 | 77.9 → 72.9 | 63 → 62 | -119 |
A smaller average move does not make a model correct. Under the ±5 cap, 3,105 counties still receive a different competition-style rank because score-band populations change around them. The result supports further research into how state context should be displayed, not a production score revision.
Display-only alternative
Can State Context Stay Separate From The Score?
Yes. County profiles can show where a usable price-per-acre snapshot sits inside its state without changing the national Land Affordability Index or any Freedom Score. This preserves interstate cost comparisons while answering a second, local-market question.
Recommended treatmentShow Local Position, Keep National Scores
The profile indicator classifies an eligible county as lower-priced quartile, below state median, above state median, or higher-priced quartile. Sample breadth is labeled separately, and counties below the public minimum remain explicitly unavailable.
Profiles covered2,89192% of counties
Eligible states473 held states
Broader samples2,34281% of available
Minimum-qualified54919% of available
Score / rank changes0 / 0Display only
25.7% of available profiles
24.8% of available profiles
24.3% of available profiles
25.2% of available profiles
Coverage recovery plan
Which Unavailable Profiles Can Be Recovered?
239 profiles can become eligible through a stronger county land-market sample. The remaining 13 are in states too small for the current eight-county benchmark and need a separate policy, not weaker evidence rules.
Recoverable profiles239Across 27 states
Thin listing samples200Price present, fewer than 8 listings
Blank public values39Reviewed; evidence remains insufficient
Reviewed source checks165No promotions across reviewed source passes
Structural holds13Small-state policy needed
View the 12 highest-priority recovery states
| State | Recoverable profiles | Thin samples | Missing prices | Known listing gap | Profiles already covered |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Dakota | 39 | 34 | 5 | 165 samples | 14 |
| Nebraska | 29 | 27 | 2 | 143 samples | 64 |
| South Dakota | 27 | 19 | 8 | 105 samples | 39 |
| Alaska | 19 | 13 | 6 | 53 samples | 11 |
| Illinois | 19 | 19 | 0 | 62 samples | 83 |
| Kansas | 16 | 14 | 2 | 63 samples | 89 |
| Montana | 15 | 7 | 8 | 41 samples | 41 |
| Texas | 14 | 12 | 2 | 44 samples | 240 |
| Minnesota | 10 | 10 | 0 | 37 samples | 77 |
| Washington | 9 | 7 | 2 | 34 samples | 30 |
| Ohio | 6 | 6 | 0 | 25 samples | 82 |
| Iowa | 5 | 5 | 0 | 11 samples | 94 |
View the next 20 unreviewed county recovery candidates
This operating queue excludes completed source checks. Published county values stay unchanged until new evidence clears the existing guarded review workflow.
| County | Current listing sample | Samples needed | Price / acre snapshot | Recovery path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chattahoochee County, GA | 7 | 1 | $8,646 | Refresh active inventory |
| Cumberland County, IL | 7 | 1 | $7,862 | Refresh active inventory |
| Gallatin County, IL | 7 | 1 | $7,168 | Refresh active inventory |
| Mercer County, IL | 7 | 1 | $7,900 | Refresh active inventory |
| Ohio County, IN | 7 | 1 | $99,800 | Refresh active inventory |
| Gallatin County, KY | 7 | 1 | $53,125 | Refresh active inventory |
| Lake of the Woods County, MN | 7 | 1 | $15,686 | Refresh active inventory |
| Roseau County, MN | 7 | 1 | $3,312 | Refresh active inventory |
| Nelson County, ND | 7 | 1 | $4,657 | Refresh active inventory |
| Sargent County, ND | 7 | 1 | $3,617 | Refresh active inventory |
| Baylor County, TX | 7 | 1 | $4,061 | Refresh active inventory |
| Reagan County, TX | 7 | 1 | $264,000 | Refresh active inventory |
| Grays Harbor County, WA | 7 | 1 | $10,235 | Refresh active inventory |
| Juneau City and Borough, AK | 6 | 2 | $550,694 | Refresh active inventory |
| Cass County, IL | 6 | 2 | $10,510 | Refresh active inventory |
| Henderson County, IL | 6 | 2 | $52,417 | Refresh active inventory |
| Union County, IN | 6 | 2 | $193,292 | Refresh active inventory |
| Audubon County, IA | 6 | 2 | $41,799 | Refresh active inventory |
| Buena Vista County, IA | 6 | 2 | $86,333 | Refresh active inventory |
| Iberville County, LA | 6 | 2 | $19,200 | Refresh active inventory |
Review all 165 completed source checks
Exact-jurisdiction routes were checked before any public update. Every reviewed county remained below the eight-listing gate, so the reviewed passes produced zero profile, score, or rank changes.
Small-state decision
Keep The Hold Until A Separate Benchmark Is Proven
Delaware, Hawaii, and Rhode Island cannot satisfy an eight-county in-state benchmark. The current recommendation is to keep national affordability visible, withhold the quartile label, and test any regional or multi-period alternative as a separate diagnostic.
Review the three structural small-state holds
| State | Total counties | Usable county samples | Profiles held | Current treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hawaii | 5 | 4 | 5 | National score only; no state quartile |
| Delaware | 3 | 3 | 3 | National score only; no state quartile |
| Rhode Island | 5 | 5 | 5 | National score only; no state quartile |
Review state coverage and sample breadth
| State | Usable counties | Profiles covered | Broader samples | Minimum-qualified | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | 62/64 | 62 | 55 | 7 | Available |
| Wyoming | 21/23 | 21 | 17 | 4 | Available |
| New Mexico | 29/33 | 29 | 21 | 8 | Available |
| Idaho | 44/44 | 44 | 41 | 3 | Available |
| Georgia | 157/159 | 157 | 146 | 11 | Available |
| Hawaii | 4/5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Held below 8-county minimum |
| Alaska | 11/30 | 11 | 0 | 11 | Available |
| Connecticut | 9/9 | 9 | 0 | 9 | Available |
| Montana | 41/56 | 41 | 29 | 12 | Available |
| Arizona | 15/15 | 15 | 0 | 15 | Available |
| Nevada | 17/17 | 17 | 0 | 17 | Available |
| Utah | 27/29 | 27 | 24 | 3 | Available |
| Virginia | 130/133 | 130 | 119 | 11 | Available |
| Oregon | 35/36 | 35 | 32 | 3 | Available |
| Washington | 30/39 | 30 | 21 | 9 | Available |
| California | 55/58 | 55 | 49 | 6 | Available |
| Oklahoma | 77/77 | 77 | 60 | 17 | Available |
| South Dakota | 39/66 | 39 | 18 | 21 | Available |
| Kansas | 89/105 | 89 | 40 | 49 | Available |
| Nebraska | 64/93 | 64 | 24 | 40 | Available |
| North Dakota | 14/53 | 14 | 0 | 14 | Available |
| Arkansas | 75/75 | 75 | 69 | 6 | Available |
| Missouri | 113/115 | 113 | 90 | 23 | Available |
| Tennessee | 95/95 | 95 | 94 | 1 | Available |
| West Virginia | 52/55 | 52 | 35 | 17 | Available |
| Texas | 240/254 | 240 | 195 | 45 | Available |
| Kentucky | 119/120 | 119 | 105 | 14 | Available |
| Mississippi | 81/82 | 81 | 70 | 11 | Available |
| South Carolina | 46/46 | 46 | 45 | 1 | Available |
| Alabama | 67/67 | 67 | 63 | 4 | Available |
| Louisiana | 63/64 | 63 | 57 | 6 | Available |
| Maine | 16/16 | 16 | 0 | 16 | Available |
| Vermont | 14/14 | 14 | 0 | 14 | Available |
| New Hampshire | 10/10 | 10 | 0 | 10 | Available |
| Wisconsin | 72/72 | 72 | 70 | 2 | Available |
| Michigan | 83/83 | 83 | 83 | 0 | Available |
| Minnesota | 77/87 | 77 | 65 | 12 | Available |
| Iowa | 94/99 | 94 | 61 | 33 | Available |
| Indiana | 89/92 | 89 | 82 | 7 | Available |
| Florida | 67/67 | 67 | 67 | 0 | Available |
| North Carolina | 100/100 | 100 | 98 | 2 | Available |
| Pennsylvania | 66/67 | 66 | 61 | 5 | Available |
| Ohio | 82/88 | 82 | 75 | 7 | Available |
| Illinois | 83/102 | 83 | 55 | 28 | Available |
| New York | 62/62 | 62 | 62 | 0 | Available |
| Maryland | 24/24 | 24 | 24 | 0 | Available |
| Massachusetts | 14/14 | 14 | 0 | 14 | Available |
| Delaware | 3/3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Held below 8-county minimum |
| New Jersey | 21/21 | 21 | 20 | 1 | Available |
| Rhode Island | 5/5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Held below 8-county minimum |
This is descriptive market context, not a second affordability score. It does not establish current listing value, parcel suitability, legal permission, financing, access, water, septic feasibility, or future resale conditions.
Missing-data behavior
Fallbacks Stay Visible
40 counties (1.3%) currently use at least one land-price or property-tax fallback. This is a research-depth signal, not proof that the resulting score is inaccurate.
When no usable median acre price is available, the current formula uses the county land-availability score.
40 counties · 1.3%When the county property-tax rate is unavailable, the current formula uses 70.
1 counties · 0%State-level variation
Where Scores Compress Within A State
State snapshots are ordered from the fewest distinct Freedom Scores upward. Held pages remain accessible for transparency but stay out of the indexable state-statistics set.
View all 50 state variation rows
| State | Counties | Distinct scores | Formula inputs varying | Secondary indexes varying | Publication status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | 9 | 1 | 1/7 | 3/4 | Held |
| Delaware | 3 | 3 | 5/7 | 4/4 | Held |
| Hawaii | 5 | 4 | 4/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Rhode Island | 5 | 5 | 4/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| New Jersey | 21 | 8 | 6/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Vermont | 14 | 8 | 6/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| New Hampshire | 10 | 8 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Massachusetts | 14 | 9 | 6/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Arizona | 15 | 12 | 6/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Maryland | 24 | 12 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Maine | 16 | 13 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Nevada | 17 | 15 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Alaska | 30 | 16 | 6/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Wyoming | 23 | 17 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Indiana | 92 | 22 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| North Carolina | 100 | 22 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Oregon | 36 | 22 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Utah | 29 | 22 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Iowa | 99 | 23 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Ohio | 88 | 23 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| South Carolina | 46 | 23 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Washington | 39 | 23 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Montana | 56 | 24 | 6/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| New Mexico | 33 | 24 | 6/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| North Dakota | 53 | 24 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Idaho | 44 | 25 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Alabama | 67 | 26 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Illinois | 102 | 26 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Pennsylvania | 67 | 26 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| California | 58 | 27 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Tennessee | 95 | 27 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Florida | 67 | 28 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| New York | 62 | 28 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| South Dakota | 66 | 28 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| West Virginia | 55 | 28 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Wisconsin | 72 | 28 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Arkansas | 75 | 29 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Michigan | 83 | 29 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Colorado | 64 | 30 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Minnesota | 87 | 30 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Virginia | 133 | 30 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Kentucky | 120 | 31 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Georgia | 159 | 32 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Louisiana | 64 | 32 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Oklahoma | 77 | 32 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Mississippi | 82 | 33 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Kansas | 105 | 34 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Missouri | 115 | 35 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Nebraska | 93 | 35 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
| Texas | 254 | 36 | 7/7 | 4/4 | Published |
Change control
What Must Happen Before The Formula Changes
Any future adjustment should begin with stronger source evidence, run against every county and state, document ranking movement, receive a new methodology version, and appear in the public changelog. County-specific exceptions are not an acceptable fix for national compression.
Version and limits
A Diagnostic Snapshot, Not A New Formula
Suggested citation: County Freedom Index, Freedom Score Sensitivity Report, version county-summary-2026-08-04. The report describes current input behavior and does not establish legal suitability, parcel approval, or a revised scoring methodology.
Snapshot last reviewed: 2026-08-04.