# Probability scoring ledger

← [Part V](README.md) · [Index](../README.md)

---

Per [scoring](../08-method/scoring.md) rule 5: probabilities that never move are being defended, not updated. Every re-score of the Part V table is logged here - claim, prior, posterior, and the written reason. Mechanism accuracy matters more than outcome luck.

## Round 0 - initial table

| Row | Claim (short) | 2030 | 2040 | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Autonomous knowledge work | 45% | 80% | Initial |
| 2 | US TFP >2%/yr sustained | 25% | 55% | Initial |
| 3 | Major AI-attributed catastrophe | 20% | 45% | Initial |
| 4 | Binding international agreement + verification | 10% | 35% | Initial |
| 5 | Humanoids >1M units/yr deployed | 15% | 60% | Initial |
| 6 | AI-sector correction >40% | 40% | 65% | Initial |
| 7 | Existential loss of control | 1–3% | 3–8% | Initial |

Source: initial corpus, 2026-07-30. No prior.

## Round 8 - first re-score against rounds 1–7

*Date: 2026-07-30. Corpus state: 69 files post–round 7, before round 8 expansions. Full rationale: [reasoning](reasoning.md).*

| Row | 2030 prior → posterior | 2040 prior → posterior | Reason (one line) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 45% → **50%** | 80% → 80% | Outcome pricing + junior-hiring data earlier than expected |
| 2 | 25% → **20%** | 55% → **50%** | Measured TFP is a high bar once quality-adjustment gap is priced ([prices](../09-macro/prices.md)) |
| 3 | 20% → 20% | 45% → 45% | Mechanism detail added; no directional shift in severity |
| 4 | 10% → **8%** | 35% → **30%** | Compute-governance trap ([bipolar](../03-domains/contested/geopolitics/bipolar.md)): lever and verification are the same object |
| 5 | 15% → **12%** | 60% → **55%** | Robotics four-constraint split; unstructured path harder |
| 6 | 40% → **45%** | 65% → 65% | Financing-mix migration raises credit-event odds ([capital](../01-substrate/capital.md)) |
| 7 | 1–3% → 1–3% | 3–8% → 3–8% | Three RSI governors bound the tail without rewriting the range |

**Rows held with explicit justification (not inertia):** 3 and 7. Rule 5 requires the justification when evidence existed and the number did not move; both are above.

**Net directional read of the re-score:** slightly more confident in near-term commercial and financial stress (rows 1, 6); slightly less confident in measured macro productivity, verified international control, and early humanoid scale (rows 2, 4, 5). The ordering thesis - incident >> loss-of-control as operative risk - is unchanged.

## Round 12 - commentary pass (no number moves)

*Date: 2026-07-30. Corpus: post–rounds 9–11 (medicine, indicators, Game 2, winters) + r12 cyber/bio/education depth.*

| Row | Action | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | **Hold** | Game 2 multi-mechanism table + cyber trough + bio chain analysis improve *which* incident, not P(incident above threshold) enough to move 20/45 |
| 4 | **Hold** | Trap + "rules ≠ verification" already priced in r8 delta; r11 capture caveat affects quality of rules, not existence probability enough to respecify 8/30 |
| 1–2, 5–7 | **Hold** | No new material forcing a move; education/meaning are welfare channels outside these rows |

Rule 5 satisfied: evidence reviewed, holds justified in writing, not inertia.

## Round 18 - re-score pass against rounds 13–17 (no number moves) + register

*Date: 2026-07-30. Corpus: post–rounds 13–17 (law/finance/science, media/software, ag/logistics, C8 provenance, compute/data, B12).*

| Row | Action | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | **Hold** | r13–14 law/finance/software depth refines *which* tasks verify cheaply, not the share of a knowledge worker's day that does; the verification ordering was already priced in r8 |
| 2 | **Hold** | r16–17 compute/data consistency work changes no macro input; B2's "silence is the base case" stands |
| 5 | **Hold** | [B12](../07-indicators/diffusion/capability.md) operationalizes the structured-first claim into triggers; an indicator getting sharper is not evidence about the outcome |
| 3–4, 6–7 | **Hold** | No new material in r13–17 bearing on incidents, agreements, corrections, or control |

Also this round: the [distributed predictions register](register.md) created - 16 probability-stamped claims outside this table are now indexed and scoreable, closing the invariant-4 gap. No register claim required a number move on the main table.

Rule 5 satisfied: evidence reviewed, holds justified in writing, not inertia.

## Round 25 - first grounded contradiction logged (no number moves)

*Date: 2026-07-30. Source: second live Ground pass.*

The open-weight lag, carried since authoring at ~9–15 months and embedded in the [Game 1 prediction](../02-games/1-labs.md) ("gap stable rather than collapsing"), measures ~3–6 months as of Jan–May 2026 (Epoch AI). This is the corpus's first live-source contradiction of a stamped claim component. No main-table row carries this figure directly, so no number moves; the affected prediction scores as written at resolution, with the ground note at source. Direction of the miss: faster diffusion - which presses row 3's incident-surface reasoning and [Game 2](../02-games/2-nations.md)'s leaky-bucket result toward *more* leakage, not less, and weakens any future argument that frontier control chokepoints are sufficient policy levers.

Rule 5 satisfied: evidence reviewed, contradiction logged rather than absorbed silently.

## Round 26 - re-score against the r25 Ground evidence (one move)

*Date: 2026-07-30. Trigger: the r25 grounded contradiction (open-weight lag ~3–6 months, Epoch AI) plus the refreshed A-family prints.*

| Row | Action | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | **Hold** | Capex and revenue prints say the build continues; nothing new on task-hour substitution or outcome-pricing share, which are this row's actual variables |
| 2 | **Hold** | Larger capex does not bear on *measured* TFP clearing 2%; the J-curve position is unchanged |
| 3 | **Hold** | The shortened lag widens the incident surface directionally, but one measured series with no deployment-severity datapoint is below the bar for moving a catastrophe probability; the mechanism list stands |
| 4 | **−1 / −2 → 7% / 28%** | The lag compression is direct evidence on this row's central object: verification of frontier training covers a shrinking capability share when near-frontier weights circulate ~3–6 months behind. Same direction as r8's export-control argument, now measured |
| 5 | **Hold** | IFR 54% and rare-earth concentration sharpen the supply-chain picture without evidence on unstructured autonomy or delivered $/hour |
| 6 | **Hold** | The dollar gap widened (capex ~$700–725B guided vs ~$55B model-layer revenue) but revenue roughly doubled y/y, so the *ratio* - the variable that matters - is ambiguous; A3's financing mix went unverified this pass. Watch A2 through 2027 before moving |
| 7 | **Hold** | No new evidence on cycle-time compression or eval integrity; the governors' status is unchanged |

Rule 5 satisfied: one move with written mechanism, six holds with named evidence. First table move since round 8.

## Rounds 27–35 - hold passes (no number moves)

*Date: 2026-07-31. Depth rounds through r35; no new scoreable series crossed a Part V bar.*

All seven rows **held**. Mechanism prose and indicators improved (Taiwan gray-zone table, Game 3 scoring cross-section, robotics fully-loaded cost, partial-clause rules, capex sync already reflected in r26 row-6 hold). Capex guidance ~$700–725B reconfirmed at source - does not force a row-6 move while the *ratio* remains ambiguous. Open-weight lag already priced into row 4 in r26. Rule 5: multi-round holds with named reasons, not silence.

## How to read a hold

The ledger's hold entries are its least glamorous and most informative content, because the failure modes of a subjective table are asymmetric in a specific way. The pressure on a maintained forecast runs toward *motion* - every round deposits new material, and moving a number is how an analyst demonstrates responsiveness - so a table that drifts a few points every pass is usually tracking the author's reading list, not the world. Rule 5 cuts the other way against *anchoring*: a number that never moves is being defended. The discipline that resolves the tension is the one visible above - every hold names the evidence reviewed and says why it was insufficient, which converts "no change" from an absence into a claim that can itself be wrong. A reader auditing this ledger should look for two smells: consecutive holds citing evidence that plainly bears on a row (anchoring wearing rule-5 clothing), and moves justified by material that merely *restates* the argument that set the prior (motion mistaken for updating). Rounds 12 and 18 are the pattern to hold future passes to: mechanism detail sharpened, numbers explicitly not moved, reasons in writing.

Note also what the ledger cannot show yet: whether the holds were right. Until claims resolve, this page measures process discipline, not accuracy - a perfectly maintained ledger of badly calibrated numbers would look identical to this one. That is not a flaw to fix; it is the reason the resolution log below exists and the reason it is empty.

## Resolution log (outcomes)

*Empty until claims come due. First wave: 2027–28. See [scoring](../08-method/scoring.md) "first claims due."*

| Due | Claim | Source | Outcome | Framework correction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - | - |

---

**Related:** [Reasoning](reasoning.md) · [Scoring](../08-method/scoring.md) · [Protocol](../RESEARCH.md) §5

**Next:** [Uncertainties](../06-uncertainties/)