Batch mcts-m6. Model 0.2.0, graph 0.2.0, parameters 0.1.1. 20 simulations, seeds 101 to 120; probes on 3. 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 20 rounds from 2026 under the greedy method, with stochastic events, 20 times. Its capability index moved from 16.00 to a median of 17.63 (+1.63), with 90 per cent of simulations between 17.27 and 18.14 [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 1,014 credits a year, calibrated so that its 2026 position is affordable with headroom for investment.
What was decided
A simulation spent a median of 2,581 credits on actions. The five groups that took most were Transparency, Oversight & Accountability (build, 104 credits, 4.0 per cent); Lifelong Learning & Reskilling (build, 91 credits, 3.5 per cent); Technical & Vocational Skills (build, 91 credits, 3.5 per cent); Public Integrity & Anti-Corruption (build, 86 credits, 3.3 per cent); Justice System & Fundamental Rights (build, 84 credits, 3.2 per cent) [experiment_decisions_by_group]. By mode: build 53 per cent, buy 26 per cent, partner 21 per cent [experiment_decisions_by_group]. Concentration of spending (HHI) had a median of 0.025, and the most repeated action appeared in 18 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 87 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 2 upside events. The most damaging per firing were S07 (1 firings in 1 simulations, −31.0 points each); S03 (7 firings in 7 simulations, −25.5 points each); S10 (1 firings in 1 simulations, −25.3 points each) [experiment_shocks]. Upside events fired 36 times across all simulations [experiment_shocks].
The groups that lost most to shocks, per simulation: Information Environment & Strategic Communication −1.21; Energy Infrastructure −1.12; Economic Leverage & Dependence −1.06; Alliances & Security Cooperation −1.05 [experiment_shock_damage_by_group].
The edges that carried most change through the graph, per simulation: Economic Output & Productivity to Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance (+0.38 points); Research Talent & Knowledge Creation to Quantum Technologies (+0.45 points); Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance to Social Infrastructure (+0.35 points) [experiment_propagation_by_edge].
Where it ended
At 2046 the median rank is 2 (5th to 95th percentile 1 to 2), the median count of Tier 1 domains 7 (6 to 7) and the median tier rank 2; the resilient score, the mean score sum over simulations, is 1,283 [experiment_objectives].
Tier 1 probability changed most in: financial strength (0 to 95 per cent of simulations); governance and integrity (0 to 100 per cent of simulations); information and influence (0 to 100 per cent of simulations); strategic infrastructure (0 to 80 per cent of simulations); trade and investment (0 to 100 per cent of simulations) [experiment_tiers_by_round].
Why
Without shocks the index ends +0.209 higher on average, so the shocks cost about 0.209 index points [experiment_probe_attribution].
Holding instead of following this method changes the index by −2.282: 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 −0.020 and −0.009, for example 2041 build Financial Regulation & Integrity (34 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 +0.113 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_high (warn): 80% of simulations end with a group at 20 that did not start there (median 2 groups).
The simulation furthest from the median (seed 118) ends +0.57 from it, with 1 shocks and 3 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].