To add some data...here are the correction factors to dry landing distances for contaminated runways with the M2. Wet runways aren’t nearly as bad but anything past wet makes short fields challenging.

Looking at those charts and attempting to interpret, is it dry runway length you want to go into, given a precip type/depth, and then the numbers in the columns are max takeoff/landing weight given the conditions and field length? It's sort of the only thing that makes sense based on a quick glance, although the M2 max gross is well below some of the bigger numbers on the chart.

You take the dry runway requirement for the given weight, altitude, temperature and winds from the "non-supplemental" performance charts, find that number on the left and then read to the right for the given contamination condition. The numbers in the body of the table are runway length in feet. The illustration is that some are big numbers, but smaller than many other jets. Contamination has a big impact on the smaller jets compared to turboprops with a reversing prop and larger jets with thrust reversers. Look at the wet ice, 2,400 foot runway length becomes 15,050 required runway length. Ice and small jets without thrust reversers don't mix well. The reason is these are balanced field lengths and represent an acceleration to V1 and then a stop or climb whichever is longer. In the ice, the stop is longer.

Wow, there are definitely some eye popping numbers in there, thank you for the explanation, I couldn't believe some of those were runway lengths!

Happened maybe yesterday or day before. KMKC. Probably a Quest Diagnostics plane. Earlier models didn’t have speedbrakes IIRC. And apparently there was a bit of a tailwind. Nevertheless the plane’s history indicates it’s less than forgiving after it lands.

Wet ice would be braking action “nil” and the airport would be notamed closed. It would be foolish to attempt a landing even in a King Air.