{ "name": "Warconomy — forecasting model registry", "archiveVersion": "1.0.0", "note": "Production model cards behind Warconomy forecasts. Each is rendered publicly at /methods/models/.", "models": [ { "id": "trend-continuation-v1", "name": "Trend continuation (rule-based)", "purpose": "Project a continuing series forward by extending its recently observed rate of change, for metrics that move gradually and are published on a regular cadence.", "method": "rule-based-projection", "assumptions": [ "The most recently observed rate of change persists over the forecast horizon.", "No discrete shock (a major offensive, a ceasefire, a policy reversal) materially breaks the trend within the horizon.", "The publishing institution keeps its measurement definition unchanged over the horizon." ], "limitations": [ "Cannot anticipate discrete shocks — precisely the events that matter most in conflict economics.", "Uncertainty widens rapidly with horizon length; beyond roughly two publication cycles the interval becomes too wide to be decision-useful.", "No seasonality adjustment; series with strong seasonal structure need a different method.", "Interval width is set by analyst judgment anchored to historical revision size, not derived from a fitted error distribution, because most of these series have too few comparable published points to fit one." ], "uncertaintyMethod": "A plausible-range bracket, widened for longer horizons, reflecting the compounding risk that the constant-rate assumption breaks down. Not a statistical confidence interval — labeled as plausible-range throughout.", "validationApproach": "Compared against a no-change naive baseline on historical published points where two or more comparable rounds exist. See /forecast-track-record for the hindcast demonstrations.", "plainSummary": "Takes the recent pace of change in an official series and keeps it going, assuming nothing dramatic happens. Simple, transparent, and easy to check — but it will miss sudden shocks.", "version": "1.0", "updateCadence": "monthly", "usesAnalystJudgment": true, "page": "https://warconomy.com/methods/models/trend-continuation-v1", "usedByForecastIds": [ "fc-2026-07-18-sudan-idp-threshold", "fc-2026-07-18-ukraine-civilian-casualty-trend", "fc-2026-07-18-ukraine-reconstruction-estimate", "fc-sudan-idp-2026-12", "hc-2026-03-sudan-idp-decline" ] }, { "id": "policy-sequencing-v1", "name": "Policy sequencing (institutional-process)", "purpose": "Estimate the likelihood that a named institution takes a defined, publicly-observable policy action within a stated window, based on its own announced process, precedent timing, and required approval thresholds.", "method": "expert-defined-scenario", "assumptions": [ "The institution follows its stated procedural sequence (proposal, negotiation, adoption) rather than acting outside it.", "Historical timing between an equivalent proposal and adoption is informative about the current one.", "Publicly-stated intent by decision-makers is meaningful evidence, though not binding." ], "limitations": [ "Unanimity- or consensus-based bodies can be blocked indefinitely by a single holdout, which precedent timing systematically under-weights.", "Announced target dates routinely slip without any public correction.", "Relies on reported negotiating positions that are often second-hand and contested." ], "uncertaintyMethod": "Expressed as a coarse probability band only (very-unlikely through very-likely), never a decimal percentage, because the reference class of comparable past decisions is small.", "validationApproach": "Scored on resolution against the institution's own published legal act (its official journal or press release), and compared against a base-rate baseline derived from how often comparable proposals were adopted within a similar window.", "plainSummary": "Looks at how an institution like the EU Council actually passes measures — who has to agree, how long similar steps took before — to judge whether a proposed measure lands by a given date.", "version": "1.0", "updateCadence": "per-event", "usesAnalystJudgment": true, "page": "https://warconomy.com/methods/models/policy-sequencing-v1", "usedByForecastIds": [ "fc-2026-07-18-eu-21st-package" ] }, { "id": "external-forecast-tracking-v1", "name": "External institutional forecast tracking", "purpose": "Track whether a named institution's own published forecast for a defined variable is revised in a stated direction by its next scheduled release, and whether the observed outcome falls inside its stated range.", "method": "analyst-override", "assumptions": [ "The institution publishes on its announced schedule.", "Its published forecast reflects information available up to its own stated cutoff — so evidence emerging after that cutoff is genuine new information about the likely revision direction." ], "limitations": [ "Predicting a forecaster's revision is not the same as predicting the underlying variable, and must never be presented as such.", "Institutions occasionally change methodology between releases, which can move a published number for reasons unrelated to the world changing.", "Highly sensitive to events landing in the gap between the institution's cutoff and its publication date." ], "uncertaintyMethod": "Direction-of-revision expressed as a coarse probability band; any accompanying level range is a plausible-range bracket around the institution's own published central value, never Warconomy's independent price model.", "validationApproach": "Resolved directly against the institution's next published release. Baseline: 'no revision' (assume the institution repeats its prior figure).", "plainSummary": "Watches whether a body like the EIA will move its own published forecast up or down at its next release, based on what has happened since it last locked its data.", "version": "1.0", "updateCadence": "monthly", "usesAnalystJudgment": true, "page": "https://warconomy.com/methods/models/external-forecast-tracking-v1", "usedByForecastIds": [ "fc-2026-07-18-eia-brent-revision", "hc-2026-02-eia-brent-june-revision" ] }, { "id": "threshold-persistence-v1", "name": "Threshold persistence", "purpose": "Estimate whether a disrupted indicator remains on the far side of a defined threshold through a stated date, where the disruption has structural causes that resolve slowly.", "method": "rule-based-projection", "assumptions": [ "The structural drivers of the current disruption (security risk, insurer pricing, contracted routing decisions) unwind more slowly than the headline news cycle suggests.", "Commercial operators change routing on multi-month planning cycles, not in immediate response to single events." ], "limitations": [ "Systematically biased toward persistence — it will be late to call a genuine normalization.", "Threshold choice is a judgment call; a differently-drawn threshold could flip the answer.", "Depends on the resolution source continuing to publish a comparable measure." ], "uncertaintyMethod": "Coarse probability band reflecting how far the current value sits from the threshold relative to its recent volatility.", "validationApproach": "Resolved against the named publishing authority's own figure at the resolution date. Baseline: 'persistence' (assume today's state simply continues), which this model must beat to be worth running.", "plainSummary": "Asks whether something that is currently disrupted will still be disrupted by a certain date, on the reasoning that shipping and insurance decisions unwind slowly.", "version": "1.0", "updateCadence": "monthly", "usesAnalystJudgment": true, "page": "https://warconomy.com/methods/models/threshold-persistence-v1", "usedByForecastIds": [ "fc-2026-07-18-suez-transits-depressed", "fc-2026-07-18-hormuz-transits-below-prewar" ] } ] }