A single address can touch permits, heritage registers, police data, transit, schools, trees, parks, and environmental records. These records were not designed to answer one person’s question together.
Fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience.
Sources use their own naming conventions, formats, update schedules, geographic boundaries, and definitions. A record may be tied to a coordinate, a parcel, a ward, a neighbourhood, or no consistent geography at all. Treating all of those as though they mean the same thing creates false precision.
That is why a search result is not enough. The useful question is not merely “what data exists?” It is “what public record applies to this place, at this scope, on this date?”
Public data becomes practical only when its geography, source, date, and limits travel with it.
The place is the join.
Perimtr begins with an address match rather than a generalized search. When the match is reliable, it provides the location that can connect relevant location-based records. Where a source only publishes at a ward or neighbourhood level, that boundary stays visible instead of being presented as address-level fact.
This is a simple discipline with an important consequence: the report can distinguish what is nearby, what is area context, and what remains unknown.
Limits are part of the answer.
An absence of a public record is not proof that nothing occurred. A published designation is not a legal opinion. A map is not an inspection. A current answer may become stale on the publisher’s next refresh cycle.
Perimtr does not hide those distinctions behind a score. The goal is to make the record easier to read while leaving the judgment with the person making the decision.