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
South Korea played 10 rounds from 2026 under the greedy marginal method, with stochastic events, 100 times. Its capability index moved from 16.00 to a median of 17.41 (+1.41), with 90 per cent of simulations between 16.66 and 17.81 [experiment_objectives].
Starting position
In 2026 the nation ranks 6 on the index against the frozen field, holds 2 of nine domains at Tier 1 and has a tier rank of 7. Its base income is 888 credits a year, calibrated so that its 2026 position is affordable with headroom for investment.
What was decided
A simulation spent a median of 2,319 credits on moves. The five groups that took most were Technical & Vocational Skills (build, 133 credits, 5.9 per cent); Diplomatic Statecraft & Global Networks (partner, 94 credits, 4.1 per cent); Lifelong Learning & Reskilling (build, 90 credits, 4.0 per cent); Economic Output & Productivity (build, 89 credits, 3.9 per cent); Advanced Education (build, 89 credits, 3.9 per cent) [experiment_decisions_by_group]. By mode: build 40 per cent, buy 35 per cent, partner 26 per cent [experiment_decisions_by_group]. Concentration of spending (HHI) had a median of 0.033, and the most repeated action appeared in 30 per cent of rounds.
The leading domain by period: rounds 1 to 5, Human Capital; rounds 6 to 10, Critical Technology [experiment_spend_by_period].
The method's chosen action was within 5 per cent of its best alternative in 87 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 1 shocks and 1 upside events. The most damaging per firing were S03 (17 firings in 17 simulations, −31.2 points each); S07 (9 firings in 9 simulations, −28.0 points each); S10 (2 firings in 2 simulations, −26.1 points each) [experiment_shocks]. Upside events fired 74 times across all simulations [experiment_shocks].
The groups that lost most to shocks, per simulation: Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance −0.63; Trade Facilitation & Logistics −0.63; Economic Leverage & Dependence −0.62; Information Environment & Strategic Communication −0.57 [experiment_shock_damage_by_group].
The edges that carried most change through the graph, per simulation: Economic Output & Productivity to Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (+0.44 points); Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance to Social Infrastructure (+0.39 points); Diplomatic Statecraft & Global Networks to Trade Policy & Market Access (+0.36 points) [experiment_propagation_by_edge].
Where it ended
At 2036 the median rank is 2 (5th to 95th percentile 2 to 2), the median count of Tier 1 domains 6 (5 to 7) and the median tier rank 2; the resilient score, the mean score sum over simulations, is 1,258 [experiment_objectives].
Tier 1 probability changed most in: financial strength (0 to 94 per cent of simulations); governance and integrity (0 to 11 per cent of simulations); information and influence (0 to 100 per cent of simulations); strategic infrastructure (0 to 74 per cent of simulations); trade and investment (0 to 100 per cent of simulations) [experiment_tiers_by_round].
Why
Without shocks the index ends +0.343 higher on average, so the shocks cost about 0.343 index points [experiment_probe_attribution].
Holding instead of following this method changes the index by −1.615: 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 −0.028 and −0.025, for example 2036 buy Industrial & Sectoral Base (51 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 +0.237 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: 3.11 points; 1% of simulations have one above 3.
tier_jump (warn): largest gain in one domain within five years: 6 tiers (100 simulations above 2).
saturation_high (warn): 92% of simulations end with a group at 20 that did not start there (median 6 groups).
retired_words (warn): e3-kor-greedy-marginal-10y/report.md: 'simulations' 3 time(s), first near line 40; use 'simulations'.
The simulation furthest from the median (seed 8) ends −0.98 from it, with 4 shocks and 0 upside events [experiment_outlier_simulations].
Comparison
This is the baseline (hold) experiment, or there is none for this nation in the batch.
No backcast comparison: this experiment does not start from a historical position [experiment_against_history].