Batch cycle-001. Model 0.1.0, graph 0.2.0, parameters 0.1.0. 100 simulations, seeds 1 to 100; probes on 20. Every figure is a distribution over simulations of a structural model with seed parameter values; it shows what the model implies under these settings, not what will happen. Other nations are frozen at their 2026 ratings. No reconstructed historical data is used in this experiment.
Headline
United Kingdom played 20 rounds from 2026 under the greedy marginal method, with stochastic events, 100 times. Its capability index moved from 16.45 to a median of 18.35 (+1.90), with 90 per cent of simulations between 17.88 and 18.60 [experiment_objectives].
Starting position
In 2026 the nation ranks 3 on the index against the frozen field, holds 2 of nine domains at Tier 1 and has a tier rank of 5. Its base income is 951 credits a year, calibrated so that its 2026 position is affordable with headroom for investment.
What was decided
A simulation spent a median of 3,458 credits on moves. The five groups that took most were Lifelong Learning & Reskilling (build, 143 credits, 4.0 per cent); Foundational Education (build, 143 credits, 4.0 per cent); Technical & Vocational Skills (build, 143 credits, 4.0 per cent); Early Childhood Development (build, 132 credits, 3.7 per cent); Justice System & Fundamental Rights (build, 126 credits, 3.5 per cent) [experiment_decisions_by_group]. By mode: build 62 per cent, buy 21 per cent, partner 17 per cent [experiment_decisions_by_group]. Concentration of spending (HHI) had a median of 0.026, and the most repeated action appeared in 15 per cent of rounds.
The leading domain by period: rounds 1 to 5, Human Capital; rounds 6 to 10, Governance & Integrity; rounds 11 to 15, Governance & Integrity; rounds 16 to 20, Critical Technology [experiment_spend_by_period].
The method's chosen action was within 5 per cent of its best alternative in 82 per cent of moves and ahead by more than 25 per cent in 0 per cent [experiment_decision_margins].
What the world did
A median simulation saw 2 shocks and 2 upside events. The most damaging per firing were S03 (33 firings in 31 simulations, −23.0 points each); S01 (26 firings in 22 simulations, −22.6 points each); S09 (9 firings in 9 simulations, −21.9 points each) [experiment_shocks]. Upside events fired 149 times across all simulations [experiment_shocks].
The groups that lost most to shocks, per simulation: Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance −0.98; Economic Leverage & Dependence −0.97; Trade Facilitation & Logistics −0.90; Investment Attraction & Projection −0.86 [experiment_shock_damage_by_group].
The edges that carried most change through the graph, per simulation: Economic Output & Productivity to Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (+0.56 points); Foundational Education to Advanced Education (+0.61 points); Advanced Education to Research Talent & Knowledge Creation (+0.52 points) [experiment_propagation_by_edge].
Where it ended
At 2046 the median rank is 1 (5th to 95th percentile 1 to 2), the median count of Tier 1 domains 7 (7 to 7) and the median tier rank 2; the resilient score, the mean score sum over simulations, is 1,329 [experiment_objectives].
Tier 1 probability changed most in: financial strength (0 to 99 per cent of simulations); human capital (0 to 100 per cent of simulations); information and influence (0 to 100 per cent of simulations); strategic infrastructure (0 to 96 per cent of simulations); trade and investment (0 to 100 per cent of simulations) [experiment_tiers_by_round].
Why
Without shocks the index ends +0.205 higher on average, so the shocks cost about 0.205 index points [experiment_probe_attribution].
Holding instead of following this method changes the index by −2.348: that is the method's worth against doing nothing [experiment_probe_attribution].
Removing any single one of the five largest actions changes the index by between −0.021 and −0.013, for example 2045 partner Space Technologies (55 credits) [experiment_probe_attribution]. The largest actions by credits come late, when income is highest, and are rarely the most valuable.
Removing the largest shock of a simulation raises the index by +0.065 on average [experiment_probe_attribution].
The replay probe reproduces the simulations exactly (index change 0.000000), so the attributions are clean [experiment_probe_attribution].
Surprises
move_without_shock (warn): largest one-year move in a group with no shock landing: 3.20 points; 67% of simulations have one above 3.
tier_jump (warn): largest gain in one domain within five years: 3 tiers (12 simulations above 2).
saturation_high (warn): 96% of simulations end with a group at 20 that did not start there (median 8 groups).
retired_words (warn): e3-gbr-greedy-marginal/report.md: 'simulations' 3 time(s), first near line 40; use 'simulations'.
The simulation furthest from the median (seed 33) ends −0.71 from it, with 7 shocks and 0 upside events [experiment_outlier_simulations].
Comparison
Against the hold experiment for the same nation (e3-gbr-hold), the median index is +2.21 points apart, the median rank 1 against 5, and Tier 1 domains 7 against 1 [experiment_against_hold].
No backcast comparison: this experiment does not start from a historical position [experiment_against_history].