Batch mcts-m2b. Model 0.2.0, graph 0.2.0, parameters 0.1.1. 20 simulations, seeds 1 to 20; 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
Estonia played 20 rounds from 2026 under the tree search (mcts) method, with stochastic events, 20 times. Its capability index moved from 11.49 to a median of 12.05 (+0.56), with 90 per cent of simulations between 10.86 and 13.34 [experiment_objectives].
Starting position
In 2026 the nation ranks 33 on the index against the frozen field, holds 0 of nine domains at Tier 1 and has a tier rank of 27. Its base income is 390 credits a year, calibrated so that its 2026 position is affordable with headroom for investment.
What was decided
A simulation spent a median of 1,253 credits on actions. The five groups that took most were Semiconductors & Advanced Computing (buy, 133 credits, 10.7 per cent); Space Technologies (partner, 106 credits, 8.5 per cent); Economic Output & Productivity (buy, 100 credits, 8.0 per cent); Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (partner, 73 credits, 5.8 per cent); Energy Technologies (buy, 62 credits, 5.0 per cent) [experiment_decisions_by_group]. By mode: buy 50 per cent, partner 37 per cent, build 13 per cent [experiment_decisions_by_group]. Concentration of spending (HHI) had a median of 0.054, and the most repeated action appeared in 55 per cent of rounds.
The leading domain by period: rounds 1 to 5, Critical Technology; 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 100 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 3 shocks and 1 upside events. The most damaging per firing were S09 (3 firings in 3 simulations, −35.5 points each); S04 (11 firings in 9 simulations, −34.0 points each); S03 (10 firings in 9 simulations, −33.1 points each) [experiment_shocks]. Upside events fired 17 times across all simulations [experiment_shocks].
The groups that lost most to shocks, per simulation: Information Environment & Strategic Communication −2.03; Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance −1.90; Trade Facilitation & Logistics −1.83; Economic Leverage & Dependence −1.77 [experiment_shock_damage_by_group].
The edges that carried most change through the graph, per simulation: Semiconductors & Advanced Computing to Artificial Intelligence (+3.16 points); Space Technologies to Space Operations (+1.23 points); Semiconductors & Advanced Computing to Economic Leverage & Dependence (+1.20 points) [experiment_propagation_by_edge].
Where it ended
At 2046 the median rank is 28 (5th to 95th percentile 22 to 36), the median count of Tier 1 domains 0 (0 to 2) and the median tier rank 21; the resilient score, the mean score sum over simulations, is 860 [experiment_objectives].
Tier 1 probability changed most in: human capital (0 to 45 per cent of simulations) [experiment_tiers_by_round].
Why
Without shocks the index ends +0.964 higher on average, so the shocks cost about 0.964 index points [experiment_probe_attribution].
Holding instead of following this method changes the index by −1.695: 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 −0.016 and −0.015, for example 2039 buy Economic Output & Productivity (13 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 +0.581 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: 7 tiers (11 simulations above 2); tiers are reported, not an objective.
The simulation furthest from the median (seed 8) ends −1.98 from it, with 6 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].
The search
Monte Carlo tree search 0.1.0 with candidate generators 0.1.0 (marginal return, graph leverage, goal gap; top 4 groups each), 500 iterations a decision, UCT c = 1.4 scaled to the reward spread, widening alpha = 0.5, greedy playouts to the horizon, objective index; playouts drew their futures from the none (certainty-equivalent playouts: the planner ignores shocks) scenario.
The committed decision most often chosen, round by round: round 1 partner Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (85 per cent of simulations, visit share 43 per cent); round 2 partner Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (100 per cent of simulations, visit share 44 per cent); round 3 partner Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (90 per cent of simulations, visit share 28 per cent); round 4 partner Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (75 per cent of simulations, visit share 28 per cent); round 5 partner Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (65 per cent of simulations, visit share 25 per cent) [mcts_decision_sequence]. The search hesitated (top two root candidates within 10 per cent) in 36 per cent of decisions, considered a mean of 32 candidates, grew trees of a mean 437 nodes to depth 4.7, and took 0.9 seconds a decision [mcts_decision_sequence].
Where the committed actions came from, by proposing generator (committed simulation-rounds): marginal return 14.5; graph leverage 6.8; greedy 4.2; graph leverage | marginal return + graph leverage 2.4; marginal return + graph leverage | graph leverage 2.3 [mcts_root_candidates].
Against the greedy experiment with the same seeds (m2b-est-greedy), the search's index at the horizon is +0.065 on average (10th to 90th percentile +0.042 to +0.085), better in 100 per cent of seeds; on the index +0.065, the score sum +3.8 and Tier 1 domains +0.20 [mcts_regret].
Across seeds the same root decision won in a mean 49 per cent of simulations (first five rounds 83 per cent) [mcts_stability].
The principal variation was followed 100 per cent at depth 1, 42 per cent at depth 2, 29 per cent at depth 3, 25 per cent at depth 4 [mcts_pv_vs_path].