Key Empirical Assumptions of RTA & RTAF Feasibility Study Models

The INVIZEN system is forced to rely upon, to one degree or another, certain empirical assumptions.  This is mainly due to the fact that most of the processes require forecasts of future events, the likelihood of which, is always subject to doubt.  Accordingly, the common business practice of making certain assumptions as to the basis of future events RTAF Technical Report Screenshotmust be made in order to undertake any type of forecast, otherwise; the forecasts cannot be rendered.  The goal of the INVIZEN system is to replace empirical assumptions wherever possible with actual data collected from market sources by the INVIZEN program.  Over the course of time, it is reasonably expected that more and more of the critical empirical assumptions would be subject to being replaced.  Having said, the key empirical assumptions used in the preparation of the RTA and RTAF reports that are subject to testing by the INVIZEN program include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

  • Data sets provided by third-parties are assumed to be accurate, whether this is the case in fact or not.
  • Interim year values (i.e.: those projected/forecasted values for years in between the current year survey estimates and future forecast year projections) are assumed to change in a straight-line fashion, whether this is the case in fact or not.
  • Calculations are made using the Microsoft Excel program formula, which are assumed to calculate all values correctly, whether this is the case in fact or not.
  • Data sets used to replace field investigation surveys that would otherwise be used in the market feasibility analysis process, are assumed to have a higher degree of accuracy confidence than the results of said human surveys, whether this is the INVIZEN RTA Valuation Reportcase in fact or not.
  • Demand models created under the INVIZEN RTA and RTAF reporting systems utilize stratifications of demand reductions that differ, to one degree or another, with other models used by other consultants – which is common to the feasibility consulting industry, and are assumed to have a comparable level of accuracy, whether this is the case in fact or not.
  • Surveyed profit spreads and/or profit spread assumptions used in the financial feasibility analyses processes are assumed to meet minimum investment return requirements for each specific intended-use model, whether this is the case in fact or not.
  • Penetration rate assumptions are assumed to be acceptable for the purposes of capital market investment purposes, whether this is the case in fact or not.
  • Analysis and creation of the prototypical end-user profile of the primary customer base is assumed to be accurate, whether this is the case in fact or not.