E4 · cycle-003.e4-ltu

Lithuania, scripted, 30 years from 1996

30 simulations of 30 rounds from the 1996 position. Lithuania decides by the scripted method; scripted events: Global funding seizure in year 2, Market access opening in year 8, Global funding seizure in year 12, Trade bloc rupture in year 18, Severe pandemic in year 24, Regional war spillover in year 26.

Model 0.2.0 · graph 0.2.0 · parameters 0.1.1 · seeds 1–30 · elasticity sampled within each bracket

The same configuration in other cycles: cycle 2.

Every simulation · Compare with another experiment · More experiments like this

Not a forecast

Simulations of a structural model with seed parameter values, to compare methods and test the model. Other nations stay at their 2026 ratings throughout.

Outcome across simulations

The median at 2026, with the 10th to the 90th percentile of the 30 simulations under it.

Capability index: 8.00 (−0.79); From 8.78; 7.99 to 8.00
Rank by index: 68; From 61; 68 to 68
Domains at Tier 1: 0; From 0; 0 to 0
Tier rank: 48; From 69; 48 to 48

Capability index by round

Rank by index, by round

Every objective at the position and at the horizon
Objective	1996	10th percentile	Median	90th percentile	Better
Capability indexprimary	8.78	7.99	8.00	8.00	higher
Rank by index	61	68	68	68	lower
Tier rank	69	48	48	48	lower
Domains at Tier 1	0	0	0	0	higher
Score sum	628.8	578.6	579.3	579.7	higher
Goal-weighted score	628.8	578.6	579.3	579.7	higher
Resilient score	628.8	579.2 (mean score sum over the simulations)			higher

The capability index is the mean of the three dimensions, each the mean of its domains, each the mean of its groups. Tiers are Pareto layers within each domain; the tier rank orders nations by domains held at Tier 1, then Tier 2, and so on. The goal-weighted score is the score sum unless the experiment sets a goal. The primary objective is the one the experiment is judged on; every other objective is reported beside it.

Credits

What each round’s credits went on in the median simulation. Across all simulations, build took 42 per cent, buy took 0 per cent, partner took 58 per cent of the 899 credits a simulation spent on actions.

Against history

Started from a reconstructed 1996 position and played along the pathway and shocks Lithuania actually had, then scored against the 2026 ratings. The position is an estimate, so part of any error is the reconstruction's. The calibration summary across all fifty nations is on the cycle's page under Loop.

Index 1996: 8.78; reconstructed
Observed 2026: 10.75; the Index's rating
Simulated 2026: 7.99; 7.95 to 8.04
Skill against persistence: −0.48; group error 2.92 against 1.97 if nothing changed

Domain	1996	Observed	Simulated	Bias	Direction
Critical Technology	5.06	5.63	4.74 4.7–4.8	−0.89	wrong
Strategic Infrastructure	9.55	10.77	9.55 9.5–9.6	−1.22	wrong
National Security	6.01	7.03	5.80 5.8–5.8	−1.24	wrong
Human Capital	10.75	12.95	9.92 9.9–9.9	−3.04	wrong
Information & Influence	8.90	10.28	8.40 8.4–8.4	−1.88	wrong
Governance & Integrity	10.54	13.84	10.95 10.9–11.0	−2.89	right
Financial Strength	9.64	12.58	7.03 7.0–7.1	−5.55	wrong
Production & Innovation	9.31	11.70	7.38 7.3–7.4	−4.32	wrong
Trade & Investment	9.29	11.95	8.19 8.1–8.2	−3.76	wrong

The history it was played under: shocks and events

1998 · S02 × 0.4 The Russian default and regional financial contagion tightened external financing and cut export demand, though Lithuania's currency board and fiscal buffers limited damage.
2004 · S12 × 0.8 EU and NATO accession opened the single market, structural funds and security guarantees, redirecting investment and policy anchor.
2008 · S02 × 0.7 The global financial crisis hit via Scandinavian banking group exposures and export collapse; GDP contracted by about 15% in 2009.
2014 · S01 × 0.6 Russia's annexation of Crimea and EU sanctions triggered a Russian food embargo and energy coercion, forcing trade and energy reorientation.
2020 · S10 × 0.7 COVID-19 pandemic strained health capacity and imposed lockdowns, though Lithuania's initial mortality was below the EU average.
2022 · S03 × 0.5 Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine brought regional war spillover: energy supply shock, refugee influx and heightened security threat without direct combat on Lithuanian territory.

The pathway: what it prioritised, period by period

1997–2004 · partner · 5% each EU and NATO accession required deep legal, institutional and security alignment, absorbing Lithuania's reform energy. (Regulatory Governance & Strategic Controls, Government Effectiveness & Public Administration, Political Institutions & Civic Participation, Trade Policy & Market Access, Alliances & Security Cooperation)
1997–2003 · build · 5% each Post-Soviet stabilisation, currency board credibility, bank privatisation and enterprise reform rebuilt macroeconomic and market foundations. (Monetary & Currency Capability, Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance, Financial System Depth & Access, Business Dynamism & Entrepreneurship)
2004–2008 · build · 5% each EU structural fund absorption modernised roads, municipal services and connectivity after accession. (Transport Infrastructure, Energy Infrastructure, Communications & Digital Infrastructure, Water, Sanitation & Waste Infrastructure)
2004–2014 · partner · 2% each NATO membership drove interoperability, expeditionary deployments and gradual capability upgrades despite low defence spending. (Force Generation & Mobilisation, Land Power, Air Power, Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment, Intelligence & Assessment)
2008–2012 · build · 5% each The global financial crisis forced austerity, bank restructuring support and fiscal consolidation to restore stability. (Financial Stability & Crisis Management, Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance, Government Effectiveness & Public Administration)
2014–2026 · build · 5% each After 2014, Lithuania prioritised energy independence through LNG import capacity, electricity grid synchronisation and renewable expansion. (Energy Infrastructure, Energy Technologies, Resource Infrastructure, Economic Leverage & Dependence)
2015–2026 · build · 2% each Digital government, e-services, cyber defence and digital skills expanded as Lithuania positioned itself as a regional fintech and IT hub. (Communications & Digital Infrastructure, Digital & AI Competence, Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations, Connectivity, Cyber & Trust Technologies)
2020–2023 · build · 5% each COVID-19 emergency procurement, vaccination and health-system adaptation were the immediate national priority. (Health System Capability, Population Health, National Resilience & Crisis Management)

Reconstruction notes (deepseek-v4-pro): The scores convert a small transitional economy's capabilities onto a global frontier scale, so many advanced-technology and military estimates are inherently imprecise; Lithuanian statistics for 1996 are fragmentary and often inflated by Soviet-era capacity that was no longer productive. The confidence levels reflect greater reliability for human capital and governance, where surveys and administrative data exist, and lower reliability for critical technology and defence, where relative global position is harder to pin down.

Report

Written from the simulation record by the loop's narrator. Every figure names the query it came from, in square brackets.

Batch cycle-003. Model 0.2.0, graph 0.2.0, parameters 0.1.1. 30 simulations, seeds 1 to 30; probes on 10. 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

Lithuania played 30 rounds from 1996 under the scripted method, with scripted events, 30 times. Its capability index moved from 8.78 to a median of 8.00 (−0.79), with 90 per cent of simulations between 7.98 and 8.00 [experiment_objectives].

Starting position

In 1996 the nation ranks 61 on the index against the frozen field, holds 0 of nine domains at Tier 1 and has a tier rank of 69. Its base income is 232 credits a year, calibrated so that its 2026 position is affordable with headroom for investment.

What was decided

A simulation spent a median of 899 credits on moves. The five groups that took most were Energy Infrastructure (build, 142 credits, 15.8 per cent); Energy Technologies (build, 96 credits, 10.7 per cent); Government Effectiveness & Public Administration (partner, 90 credits, 10.1 per cent); Trade Policy & Market Access (partner, 90 credits, 10.1 per cent); Regulatory Governance & Strategic Controls (partner, 90 credits, 10.1 per cent) [experiment_decisions_by_group]. By mode: partner 58 per cent, build 42 per cent [experiment_decisions_by_group]. Concentration of spending (HHI) had a median of 0.090, and the most repeated action appeared in 47 per cent of rounds.

The leading domain by period: rounds 1 to 5, Governance & Integrity; rounds 6 to 10, Governance & Integrity; rounds 11 to 15, National Security; rounds 16 to 20, National Security; rounds 21 to 25, Strategic Infrastructure; rounds 26 to 30, Strategic Infrastructure [experiment_spend_by_period].

What the world did

A median simulation saw 5 shocks and 1 upside events. The most damaging per firing were S10 (30 firings in 30 simulations, −31.4 points each); S03 (30 firings in 30 simulations, −23.9 points each); S01 (30 firings in 30 simulations, −19.8 points each) [experiment_shocks]. Upside events fired 30 times across all simulations [experiment_shocks].

The groups that lost most to shocks, per simulation: Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance −3.64; Trade Facilitation & Logistics −3.60; Trade Policy & Market Access −3.18; Monetary & Currency Capability −3.16 [experiment_shock_damage_by_group].

The edges that carried most change through the graph, per simulation: Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance to Social Infrastructure (−0.59 points); Transport Infrastructure to Trade Facilitation & Logistics (+0.14 points); Economic Output & Productivity to Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (−0.37 points) [experiment_propagation_by_edge].

Where it ended

At 2026 the median rank is 68 (5th to 95th percentile 68 to 68), the median count of Tier 1 domains 0 (0 to 0) and the median tier rank 48; the resilient score, the mean score sum over simulations, is 579 [experiment_objectives].

Why

Without shocks the index ends +1.756 higher on average, so the shocks cost about 1.756 index points [experiment_probe_attribution].

Holding instead of following this method changes the index by −0.766: 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 +0.003 and +0.026, for example 1997 partner Regulatory Governance & Strategic Controls (12 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 +0.496 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

tier_jump (warn): largest gain in one domain within five years: 8 tiers (30 simulations above 2); tiers are reported, not an objective.

retired_words (warn): e4-ltu/report.md: 'simulations' 1 time(s), first near line 38; use 'simulations'.

The simulation furthest from the median (seed 24) ends −0.01 from it, with 5 shocks and 1 upside events [experiment_outlier_simulations].

Comparison

This is the baseline (hold) experiment, or there is none for this nation in the batch.

Against history: from a reconstructed index of 8.78 the model ends at 7.99, where the 2026 ratings put it at 10.75. Group scores miss by 2.92 points on average, against 1.97 for assuming nothing changed (skill −0.48); the change in each domain has the right sign in 11 per cent of domains. Furthest below history: financial strength (−5.55); furthest above: critical technology (−0.89) [experiment_against_history]. The starting position is reconstructed, so part of the error is the reconstruction's.

What each decision and shock was worth

Counterfactual probes on the first 10 seeds: the same simulations with one thing changed, paired seed by seed. A removed decision or shock is taken out and the other decisions replayed unchanged, so the difference is that item's worth.

Probe	Index	Score sum	Tier 1	For example
Hold instead of the method	−0.766	−56.2	0.00
No shocks	+1.756	+118.1	+1.00
Replay of the recorded actions (must change nothing)	0.000	0.0	0.00
Without the 1st largest decision	+0.004	+0.2	0.00	1997 partner Regulatory Governance & Strategic Controls (12 credits)
Without the 2nd largest decision	+0.003	+0.1	0.00	1997 partner Government Effectiveness & Public Administration (12 credits)
Without the 3rd largest decision	+0.004	+0.1	0.00	1997 partner Political Institutions & Civic Participation (12 credits)
Without the 4th largest decision	+0.026	+1.9	0.00	1997 partner Trade Policy & Market Access (12 credits)
Without the 5th largest decision	+0.003	+0.2	0.00	1997 partner Alliances & Security Cooperation (12 credits)
Without the 1st largest shock	+0.496	+34.4	0.00	2020 S10 (-31.4 points)
Without the 2nd largest shock	+0.358	+25.8	0.00	2022 S03 (-23.9 points)
Without the 3rd largest shock	+0.385	+26.0	0.00	2008 S02 (-21.9 points)

Simulations

Three simulations told round by round, each on its own page: the one nearest the median index at the horizon, and those nearest the 10th and the 90th percentile. Every one of the 30 is listed with its outcome on the simulations page.

All 30 simulations

Events

How often each shock and upside event began across the simulations. Shocks come from the ten downside scenarios and upside events from the ten upside ones, at their yearly likelihood.

Event	Kind	Simulations	Mean round	Points
Trade bloc rupture S01	Shock	100 per cent	18.0	−19.8
Global funding seizure S02	Shock	100 per cent	7.0	−17.1
Regional war spillover S03	Shock	100 per cent	26.0	−23.9
Severe pandemic S10	Shock	100 per cent	24.0	−31.4
Market access opening S12	Upside	100 per cent	8.0	+18.3

Groups across simulations

Every capability group: its position, and its median and spread at the horizon across the simulations, with what the method spent on it.

Find a group

Domain

73 of 73 groups

Capability group	Domain	1996	2026	Change	Levels invested	Credits
Trade Policy & Market Access	Trade & Investment	9.74	16.16 16.07 to 16.21	+6.42	9.12	91
Energy Technologies	Critical Technology	4.78	8.91 8.89 to 8.92	+4.13	4.96	96
Alliances & Security Cooperation	Information & Influence	9.75	13.80 13.73 to 13.85	+4.05	5.67	50
Energy Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	9.16	13.15 13.07 to 13.23	+3.99	4.77	142
Regulatory Governance & Strategic Controls	Governance & Integrity	9.86	13.21 13.20 to 13.23	+3.35	4.14	91
Political Institutions & Civic Participation	Governance & Integrity	10.15	12.74 12.72 to 12.75	+2.59	3.54	91
Government Effectiveness & Public Administration	Governance & Integrity	11.98	13.61 13.55 to 13.66	+1.63	3.13	91
Resource Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	6.82	7.94 7.85 to 8.07	+1.12	2.13	53
Air Power	National Security	5.77	6.57 6.56 to 6.59	+0.80	1.57	26
Transport Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	10.13	10.77 10.65 to 10.87	+0.64	1.89	46
Communications & Digital Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	11.20	11.61 11.55 to 11.68	+0.41	1.20	23
Land Power	National Security	8.80	9.03 9.02 to 9.06	+0.23	1.28	26
Intelligence & Assessment	National Security	7.66	7.74 7.64 to 7.83	+0.08	0.86	11
Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	National Security	7.17	7.19 7.15 to 7.23	+0.02	1.37	24
Nuclear Deterrence	National Security	0.03	0.01 0.00 to 0.02	−0.02	0.00	0
Force Generation & Mobilisation	National Security	9.32	9.09 8.99 to 9.22	−0.23	1.25	26
Technical & Vocational Skills	Human Capital	10.33	9.97 9.96 to 9.98	−0.36	0.00	0
Space Technologies	Critical Technology	3.30	2.86 2.86 to 2.87	−0.44	0.00	0
Semiconductors & Advanced Computing	Critical Technology	3.07	2.58 2.58 to 2.59	−0.49	0.00	0
Space Operations	National Security	4.34	3.79 3.77 to 3.80	−0.55	0.00	0
Justice System & Fundamental Rights	Governance & Integrity	10.20	9.63 9.55 to 9.71	−0.57	0.00	0
Digital & AI Competence	Human Capital	10.73	10.14 10.13 to 10.16	−0.59	0.00	0
Space, Aerospace & Defence Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	5.46	4.86 4.81 to 4.92	−0.60	0.00	0
Transparency, Oversight & Accountability	Governance & Integrity	10.45	9.84 9.78 to 9.89	−0.61	0.00	0
Water, Sanitation & Waste Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	11.09	10.47 10.35 to 10.60	−0.62	0.46	11
Quantum Technologies	Critical Technology	4.34	3.72 3.71 to 3.74	−0.62	0.00	0
Lifelong Learning & Reskilling	Human Capital	9.93	9.25 9.23 to 9.27	−0.68	0.00	0
Advanced Education	Human Capital	11.50	10.81 10.78 to 10.84	−0.69	0.00	0
Research Talent & Knowledge Creation	Human Capital	10.07	9.32 9.30 to 9.35	−0.75	0.00	0
Connectivity, Cyber & Trust Technologies	Critical Technology	5.71	4.95 4.94 to 4.95	−0.76	0.00	0
Advanced Manufacturing	Strategic Infrastructure	10.56	9.79 9.69 to 9.88	−0.77	0.00	0
Maritime Power	National Security	4.93	4.15 4.15 to 4.15	−0.78	0.00	0
Early Childhood Development	Human Capital	12.26	11.48 11.44 to 11.52	−0.78	0.00	0
Robotics & Autonomous Systems	Critical Technology	5.30	4.51 4.49 to 4.53	−0.79	0.00	0
Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations	National Security	6.94	6.15 6.13 to 6.18	−0.79	0.00	0
Public Integrity & Anti-Corruption	Governance & Integrity	10.07	9.24 9.23 to 9.26	−0.83	0.00	0
Sensing, Timing & Navigation	Critical Technology	5.70	4.86 4.84 to 4.87	−0.84	0.00	0
Strategic Strike & Missile Defence	National Security	5.10	4.25 4.23 to 4.27	−0.85	0.00	0
Advanced Materials & Manufacturing	Critical Technology	5.12	4.24 4.23 to 4.24	−0.88	0.00	0
Internal Security & Order	Governance & Integrity	10.61	9.67 9.63 to 9.70	−0.94	0.00	0
Development Cooperation & Global Assistance	Information & Influence	5.62	4.65 4.59 to 4.68	−0.97	0.00	0
Agriculture & Food Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	10.26	9.26 9.23 to 9.28	−1.00	0.00	0
Artificial Intelligence	Critical Technology	6.71	5.70 5.67 to 5.72	−1.01	0.00	0
Foundational Education	Human Capital	12.04	10.98 10.92 to 11.03	−1.06	0.00	0
Population Health	Human Capital	9.53	8.46 8.42 to 8.49	−1.07	0.00	0
Culture, Language & Education Diplomacy	Information & Influence	9.67	8.34 8.32 to 8.38	−1.33	0.00	0
National Resilience & Crisis Management	Governance & Integrity	11.00	9.67 9.62 to 9.75	−1.33	0.00	0
Diaspora & Global Communities	Information & Influence	10.75	9.33 9.33 to 9.34	−1.42	0.00	0
Biotechnology & Health Technologies	Critical Technology	6.58	5.06 5.04 to 5.07	−1.52	0.00	0
Innovation & Commercialisation	Production & Innovation	8.50	6.95 6.92 to 6.96	−1.55	0.00	0
Financial Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	10.08	8.52 8.41 to 8.59	−1.56	0.00	0
Health System Capability	Human Capital	10.39	8.83 8.77 to 8.91	−1.56	0.00	0
Diplomatic Statecraft & Global Networks	Information & Influence	8.65	7.05 7.02 to 7.09	−1.60	0.00	0
Sovereign Capital & External Financial Power	Financial Strength	7.64	6.02 5.98 to 6.06	−1.62	0.00	0
Technology Adoption & Diffusion	Production & Innovation	9.50	7.85 7.84 to 7.87	−1.65	0.00	0
Social Infrastructure	Strategic Infrastructure	10.78	9.10 9.01 to 9.30	−1.68	0.00	0
Business Dynamism & Entrepreneurship	Production & Innovation	9.98	8.26 8.19 to 8.35	−1.72	0.00	0
Information Environment & Strategic Communication	Information & Influence	8.97	7.21 7.19 to 7.22	−1.76	0.00	0
Industrial & Sectoral Base	Production & Innovation	9.55	7.78 7.71 to 7.83	−1.77	0.00	0
Digital & Services Trade	Trade & Investment	10.23	8.39 8.38 to 8.40	−1.84	0.00	0
Structural Transformation & Complexity	Production & Innovation	9.57	7.70 7.67 to 7.74	−1.87	0.00	0
Economic Output & Productivity	Production & Innovation	8.60	6.46 6.42 to 6.49	−2.14	0.00	0
Export Capability & Sophistication	Trade & Investment	7.78	5.63 5.60 to 5.67	−2.15	0.00	0
Financial Regulation & Integrity	Financial Strength	9.86	7.59 7.54 to 7.64	−2.27	0.00	0
Financial System Depth & Access	Financial Strength	9.07	6.69 6.68 to 6.70	−2.38	0.00	0
Investment Attraction & Projection	Trade & Investment	8.89	6.51 6.50 to 6.54	−2.38	0.00	0
Global Value Chain Position	Trade & Investment	9.90	7.48 7.38 to 7.52	−2.42	0.00	0
Economic Leverage & Dependence	Trade & Investment	8.08	5.58 5.53 to 5.63	−2.50	0.00	0
Financial Stability & Crisis Management	Financial Strength	9.42	6.88 6.82 to 6.94	−2.54	0.00	0
Labour & Employment	Production & Innovation	9.47	6.65 6.61 to 6.69	−2.82	0.00	0
Trade Facilitation & Logistics	Trade & Investment	10.40	7.57 7.54 to 7.62	−2.83	0.00	0
Monetary & Currency Capability	Financial Strength	11.16	8.13 8.03 to 8.20	−3.03	0.19	4
Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance	Financial Strength	10.69	6.87 6.80 to 6.96	−3.82	0.00	0

Checks

The automated checks run on this experiment before anything was written about it. A warning is a candidate finding for the improvement loop.

passcredits_conservedlargest gap between credits in and credits accounted for: 7.1e-15
passscores_in_boundsscores range 0.000 to 19.200
passno_nans0 missing values in the trajectory and objectives
passprobe_replay_reproducesthe recorded moves played back reproduce the simulation to within 0.0e+00 points (10 simulations)
passledger_balancesthe edge ledger sums to the propagated change to within 2.1e-08 points
passmove_without_shocklargest one-year move in a group with no shock landing: 1.37 points; 0% of simulations have one above 3
warntier_jumplargest gain in one domain within five years: 8 tiers (30 simulations above 2); tiers are reported, not an objective
passall_tier1_from_outside_top10starting rank 61; 0 simulations reach Tier 1 in all nine domains
passsaturation_high0% of simulations end with a group at 20 that did not start there (median 0 groups)
passsaturation_low10% of simulations end with a group at 0 that did not start there (median 0 groups)
passspend_concentrationmedian concentration of spending across groups (HHI) 0.090; most funded group hard.strategic_infrastructure.energy_infrastructure
passsame_actionthe most repeated move (group and mode) appears in a median 47% of rounds
passregression_index_p50index_p50 moved 7.0% since cycle-002 (7.47 to 8.00); versions changed (0.1.0 to 0.1.1, graph 0.2.0 to 0.2.0)
passregression_score_sum_p50score_sum_p50 moved 7.2% since cycle-002 (540.49 to 579.32); versions changed (0.1.0 to 0.1.1, graph 0.2.0 to 0.2.0)

Settings and versions

Experiment cycle-003.e4-ltu. Every simulation records the model, graph and parameter versions, the scenario, the method and its seed, so it can be reproduced exactly.

Nation: Lithuania (LTU)
Position: A reconstructed 1996 position, aligned to the Index's scale
Method: Scripted. Actions fixed in advance by the experiment: for a backcast, the nation's historical pathway.
Scenario: Scripted events: Global funding seizure in year 2, Market access opening in year 8, Global funding seizure in year 12, Trade bloc rupture in year 18, Severe pandemic in year 24, Regional war spillover in year 26
Objective: Capability index, the primary objective the experiment is judged on; every other objective is reported beside it
Horizon: 30 rounds, 1996 to 2026
Simulations: 30 seeds, 1 to 30. Every method in the batch faces the same draws for the same seed.
Graph elasticities: Drawn for each simulation, uniformly within each edge’s bracket
Income: Base credits 232.1 a round, moving with the economic groups
Versions: Model 0.2.0, Capability Dependency Graph 0.2.0, parameters 0.1.1
Batch: Backcast 1996-2026 (cycle-003), cycle 3 of the improvement loop
Runtime: 6.5 seconds in all; 1544 microseconds a round

Not a forecast: Every figure is a distribution over the simulations of a structural model, reported to compare methods and test the model. None is a prediction of what a nation will do or become.
Structural parameters: Costs, decay, vulnerability and credits are structural seed values with low or medium confidence, set by domain with single-group exceptions. Five groups have no defensible value in a single-nation model and are flagged in the parameter tables.
Other nations are frozen: One nation is simulated at a time. Every other nation stays at its 2026 rating, so rank and tiers are measured against a still field; where the simulated nation rises past others their own tiers are not re-sorted.
Starting depth and mode are defaults: The position is the National Capability Index ratings. How institutionalised each capability is, and how much was built, bought or partnered, have no data behind them yet and start from structural defaults.
Credits are calibrated, not measured: Each nation’s income is set so that its position is affordable with headroom that rises with its fiscal capacity. It is not yet fiscal capacity as a share of GDP.