Batch mcts-m2. Model 0.1.0, graph 0.2.0, parameters 0.1.0. 50 simulations, seeds 1 to 50; probes on 5. 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
Kenya played 20 rounds from 2026 under the greedy method, with stochastic events, 50 times. Its capability index moved from 7.18 to a median of 7.34 (+0.16), with 90 per cent of simulations between 5.22 and 8.25 [experiment_objectives].
Starting position
In 2026 the nation ranks 79 on the index against the frozen field, holds 0 of nine domains at Tier 1 and has a tier rank of 91. Its base income is 143 credits a year, calibrated so that its 2026 position is affordable with headroom for investment.
What was decided
A simulation spent a median of 532 credits on actions. The five groups that took most were Semiconductors & Advanced Computing (buy, 64 credits, 11.5 per cent); Connectivity, Cyber & Trust Technologies (buy, 46 credits, 8.5 per cent); Technical & Vocational Skills (build, 40 credits, 7.5 per cent); Development Cooperation & Global Assistance (buy, 33 credits, 6.2 per cent); Artificial Intelligence (buy, 32 credits, 5.9 per cent) [experiment_decisions_by_group]. By mode: buy 55 per cent, partner 30 per cent, build 15 per cent [experiment_decisions_by_group]. Concentration of spending (HHI) had a median of 0.063, and the most repeated action appeared in 50 per cent of rounds.
The leading domain by period: rounds 1 to 5, Human Capital; rounds 6 to 10, Critical Technology; rounds 11 to 15, Critical Technology; 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 94 per cent of actions 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 0 upside events. The most damaging per firing were S06 (16 firings in 14 simulations, −60.6 points each); S03 (19 firings in 18 simulations, −47.3 points each); S05 (6 firings in 6 simulations, −39.5 points each) [experiment_shocks]. Upside events fired 23 times across all simulations [experiment_shocks].
The groups that lost most to shocks, per simulation: Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance −2.39; Trade Facilitation & Logistics −2.04; Monetary & Currency Capability −1.82; Economic Leverage & Dependence −1.76 [experiment_shock_damage_by_group].
The edges that carried most change through the graph, per simulation: Semiconductors & Advanced Computing to Artificial Intelligence (+1.29 points); Semiconductors & Advanced Computing to Economic Leverage & Dependence (+0.45 points); Connectivity, Cyber & Trust Technologies to Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations (+0.46 points) [experiment_propagation_by_edge].
Where it ended
At 2046 the median rank is 76 (5th to 95th percentile 65 to 115), the median count of Tier 1 domains 0 (0 to 0) and the median tier rank 75; the resilient score, the mean score sum over simulations, is 492 [experiment_objectives].
Why
Without shocks the index ends +1.055 higher on average, so the shocks cost about 1.055 index points [experiment_probe_attribution].
Holding instead of following this method changes the index by −1.010: 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 −0.011 and −0.009, for example 2039 partner Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (8 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 +0.874 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
saturation_low (warn): 28% of simulations end with a group at 0 that did not start there (median 0 groups).
The simulation furthest from the median (seed 33) ends −4.27 from it, with 7 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].