{ "version": "0.2.0", "verified": "October 2026", "intro": "Every published scenario, stress-test or risk-ranking programme that GINC drew on when revising the Library from v0.1 to v0.2: what each one is, what it covers, where to find it and what GINC borrowed or deliberately avoided.", "assessment_note": "Strengths and limitations are GINC desk assessments, made from the standpoint of building a scenario library for nations. They are not a judgement of each programme against its own purpose.", "gap": "What none of them provides, and GINC does: a scenario library specified against a capability taxonomy, so that each shock maps to the capabilities it loads and can be run against every nation's balance sheet.", "primary": [ { "n": 1, "id": "wef-global-risks", "org": "World Economic Forum", "partners": "With Marsh McLennan and Zurich Insurance Group as strategic partners", "name": "Global Risks Report 2026", "type": "Risk ranking", "cadence": "Annual since 2006, released each January", "scope": "Global; 33 risks across economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological categories, ranked on three horizons (current year, two years, ten years); Global Risks Perception Survey of more than 1,300 leaders plus expert consultations; risk interconnections map; regional and stakeholder breakdowns.", "focus": "Perception-based ranking of global risks for the Davos audience.", "details": "2026: geoeconomic confrontation first on the current and two-year horizons, displacing state-based armed conflict; extreme weather first on the ten-year horizon; economic downturn and inflation up eight places; asset bubble bursting up seven; adverse outcomes of AI fifth on ten years. Much of the two-year top 10 (polarisation, inequality, erosion of civic freedoms, pollution) is chronic rather than acute.", "strengths": [ "Three horizons and a continuous annual series since 2006, so movement is visible", "Stakeholder and regional breakdowns from one survey", "A map of how risks connect" ], "weaknesses": [ "Ratings come from a perception survey, not a specified event", "The list mixes chronic trends with acute shocks", "No severity definition, so risks cannot be compared at a common intensity" ], "took": "The two-horizon convention; stakeholder and regional splits; the evidence for separating trends from shocks.", "avoided": "A perception survey as the source of ratings; a list that mixes chronic and acute risks.", "reports": [ { "title": "Global Risks Report 2026", "url": "https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2026/" }, { "title": "Global Risks Report 2026, chapter 1", "url": "https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2026/in-full/global-risks-report-2026-chapter-1/" } ] }, { "n": 2, "id": "uk-national-risk-register", "org": "UK Cabinet Office", "partners": "The public version of the classified National Security Risk Assessment", "name": "National Risk Register 2025", "type": "National risk register", "cadence": "Public editions 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2025", "scope": "United Kingdom; 89 risks in nine themes: terrorism; cyber; state threats; geographic and diplomatic; accidents and systems failures; natural and environmental hazards; human, animal and plant health; societal; conflict and instability.", "focus": "A reasonable worst-case scenario per acute risk, scored on a five-band likelihood scale with explicit probability ranges and a five-level impact scale across seven dimensions; two-year horizon for malicious risks and five-year for non-malicious; chronic risks assessed separately.", "details": "Pandemic is the most likely catastrophic-impact risk; large-scale CBRN and national electricity transmission failure are also rated catastrophic. The Lead Government Department model ties risks to capability owners. The underlying assessment now runs as a dynamic process.", "strengths": [ "Explicit probability ranges behind every likelihood band", "A defined reasonable worst case for each risk", "Impact judged on seven dimensions, with each risk tied to a capability owner" ], "weaknesses": [ "One nation only", "The public register is a cut of a classified assessment", "Different horizons for malicious and non-malicious risks make comparison harder" ], "took": "The likelihood bands; the reasonable-worst-case definition for Standard Extreme; the chronic and acute split; the seven impact dimensions as the basis for national impact.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "National Risk Register 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6787ea8e1124a2c3ceb646bf/National_Risk_Register_2025.pdf" } ] }, { "n": 3, "id": "swiss-national-risk-analysis", "org": "Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection", "partners": null, "name": "Disasters and Emergencies in Switzerland 2025", "type": "National risk register", "cadence": "Editions 2012, 2015, 2020, 2025", "scope": "Switzerland; 44 hazards in six groups across nature, technology and society.", "focus": "Every hazard assessed at one common 'major' intensity of national significance so that hazards can be compared; expected annual damage in francs across four damage dimensions (individuals, environment, economy, society); a risk diagram of frequency against extent of damage.", "details": "2025 ranking by expected loss: pandemic, electricity supply shortage, earthquake, people seeking protection, inland flooding, windstorm, drought, electricity outage, heat wave, rockfall.", "strengths": [ "One common intensity makes 44 hazards directly comparable", "Damage monetised on four dimensions", "A separate, published method report" ], "weaknesses": [ "One nation only", "A ranking by expected annual loss can understate rare catastrophic events", "Updated about every five years" ], "took": "The single-common-intensity principle, with Standard Severe as the comparability anchor; the hazard ranking as evidence for S08 (displacement), S10 (earthquake) and S12 (electricity).", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "Disasters and Emergencies in Switzerland 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.babs.admin.ch/dam/en/sd-web/w9MXSxMj0A4S/KNS2025-Risikobroschuere-final_en.pdf" }, { "title": "Method report 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.babs.admin.ch/dam/en/sd-web/P5wShHylcu1J/KNS-2025-Methodenbericht_final_en.pdf" } ] }, { "n": 4, "id": "norway-crisis-scenarios", "org": "Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection (DSB)", "partners": null, "name": "Analyses of Crisis Scenarios 2019", "type": "National risk register", "cadence": "A compilation of 25 risk analyses produced since 2011", "scope": "Norway; natural events, major accidents and intentional acts.", "focus": "Concretely specified scenarios (place, time, magnitude) assessed for likelihood, consequences for societal values and uncertainty; written to be transparent and verifiable.", "details": "Pandemic influenza is assessed as the greatest risk. Scenarios include drug shortage, grain production failure, long-term power rationing, solar storm, volcanic eruption in Iceland, quick-clay landslide, nuclear accident abroad, cyber attack on financial infrastructure and hybrid state aggression.", "strengths": [ "Each scenario is specified by place, time and magnitude", "Uncertainty is assessed alongside likelihood and consequence", "Supply-failure scenarios that most registers omit" ], "weaknesses": [ "One nation only", "Last compiled in 2019", "Analyses were produced over several years, so they are not a single consistent cut" ], "took": "Concrete scenario specification as a standard; the supply-failure scenarios (medicines, grain, power) that widened S02, S11 and S12.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "Analyses of Crisis Scenarios 2019", "url": "https://dsb.no/rapporter-og-evalueringer/analyses-of-crisis-scenarios-2019" }, { "title": "Risk analysis at a societal level: method and process", "url": "https://dsb.no/veiledere-handboker-og-informasjonsmateriell/risk-analysis-at-a-societal-level-method-and-process-for-producing-analyses-of-crisis-scenarios-acs" } ] }, { "n": 5, "id": "eurasia-top-risks", "org": "Eurasia Group", "partners": null, "name": "Top Risks 2026", "type": "Risk ranking", "cadence": "Annual since 1998, released each January", "scope": "Global; 10 risks plus 'red herrings'.", "focus": "A narrative political-risk forecast for the year ahead.", "details": "2026 list: US political revolution; 'Overpowered' (China on electrons, US on molecules); the 'Donroe Doctrine'; Europe under siege; Russia's second front (hybrid war on NATO); state capitalism with American characteristics; China's deflation trap; AI eats its users; zombie USMCA; the water weapon.", "strengths": [ "Names emerging political dynamics early and vividly", "A top-10 format that travels", "A series running since 1998" ], "weaknesses": [ "Qualitative; nothing is scored", "The list is rebuilt every year with no persistent grammar", "One-year horizon" ], "took": "The annual top-10 format and the salience of hybrid warfare (S06) and water (S11).", "avoided": "A fresh list each year with no persistent grammar.", "reports": [ { "title": "Top Risks 2026", "url": "https://www.eurasiagroup.net/issues/Top-Risks-2026" } ] }, { "n": 6, "id": "cfr-preventive-priorities", "org": "Council on Foreign Relations", "partners": "Center for Preventive Action", "name": "Preventive Priorities Survey 2026", "type": "Risk ranking", "cadence": "Annual; the 2026 survey was published in December 2025", "scope": "30 conflict contingencies over the next 12 months, rated by US foreign-policy experts on likelihood and impact on US interests and sorted into three tiers.", "focus": "Conflict-prevention priorities for the United States.", "details": "2026 Tier I: escalation in the West Bank; renewed Gaza fighting; intensification of the Russia–Ukraine war; US strikes escalating in Venezuela; political violence and civil unrest in the United States. 28 of 30 contingencies are rated at least 50 per cent likely, with a record number of Western Hemisphere contingencies.", "strengths": [ "Tiers built from likelihood and impact together", "A named list of contingencies, repeated annually", "Expert ratings, published in full" ], "weaknesses": [ "Impact is measured on US interests", "Conflict only", "Twelve-month horizon" ], "took": "Tiering by likelihood and impact; the 12-month horizon as a reference; the US domestic-unrest contingency as evidence for S07.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "Five takeaways from the 2026 conflict risk assessment", "url": "https://www.cfr.org/articles/five-takeaways-cfrs-2026-conflict-risk-assessment" }, { "title": "Preventive Priorities Survey 2026 (PDF)", "url": "https://assets.cfr.org/images/PPS26_Full_SinglePages_2025-12-17/PPS26_Full_SinglePages_2025-12-17.pdf" } ] }, { "n": 7, "id": "fed-stress-test", "org": "Federal Reserve Board", "partners": null, "name": "Supervisory stress test scenarios 2026", "type": "Supervisory stress test", "cadence": "Annual since 2011; released 4 February 2026", "scope": "32 large US banks; baseline and severely adverse scenarios; 28 domestic plus international variables over nine quarters; a global market shock for banks with large trading operations.", "focus": "Capital adequacy under a severe global recession. 2026 severely adverse: unemployment up about 5.5 points to 10 per cent; house prices down 30 per cent; commercial real estate down 39 per cent; a sharp widening of corporate spreads.", "details": "Severity is governed by the Policy Statement on the Scenario Design Framework (2013, amended 2019), which is countercyclical. The 2026 reforms publish models for comment and delay new stress capital buffers to 2027.", "strengths": [ "Every variable has a quantified path", "A published scenario design framework governs severity", "Run every year on the same footing" ], "weaknesses": [ "US banks and financial variables only", "One kind of shock: a severe recession", "A credit-loss focus missed the interest-rate and liquidity failures of March 2023" ], "took": "The severely adverse parameters for S03; the principle of a published scenario design framework.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "2026 stress test scenarios, press release", "url": "https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20260204a.htm" } ] }, { "n": 8, "id": "boe-stress-test", "org": "Bank of England", "partners": "Financial Policy Committee and Prudential Regulation Authority", "name": "Bank Capital Stress Test 2025", "type": "Supervisory stress test", "cadence": "Launched March 2025; results December 2025", "scope": "Seven banks, about 75 per cent of UK lending; five-year horizon from end-2024.", "focus": "A severe global supply shock from escalating geopolitical tensions: oil up 100 per cent, gas up 300 per cent, world trade volumes down 20 per cent, world GDP down 2 per cent, UK GDP down 5 per cent, UK unemployment 8.5 per cent, house prices down 28 per cent, commercial property down 50 per cent from the 2022 peak, CPI 10 per cent, Bank Rate 8 per cent, equities down 48 per cent (UK) and 57 per cent (US).", "details": "Calibrated to first-percentile historical distributions adjusted for current vulnerabilities. The successor to the Annual Cyclical Scenario. The Bank also runs exploratory exercises: the System-Wide Exploratory Scenario 2023–24 on non-banks and the Climate Biennial Exploratory Scenario 2021.", "strengths": [ "Trade, energy and financial shocks combined in one scenario", "Key elements and variable paths are public", "Calibrated to first-percentile history" ], "weaknesses": [ "UK banks only", "One scenario per exercise", "Read through bank capital, not national capability" ], "took": "Trade and energy shock parameters for S01 and S09; the inflationary variant of S03; the five-year horizon.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "Key elements of the 2025 Bank Capital Stress Test", "url": "https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/stress-testing/2025/key-elements-bank-capital" } ] }, { "n": 9, "id": "eba-stress-test", "org": "European Banking Authority", "partners": "Adverse scenario by the European Systemic Risk Board with the ECB", "name": "2025 EU-wide stress test", "type": "Supervisory stress test", "cadence": "Exercises in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2023 and 2025", "scope": "64 banks (51 under the Single Supervisory Mechanism), about 75 per cent of EU and Norwegian banking assets; 2025–2027.", "focus": "An adverse scenario of worsening geopolitical tensions and protectionism with energy and commodity price rises and supply-chain disruption: EU real GDP down 6.3 per cent cumulative; unemployment up 6.1 points; inflation 5.0 per cent (2025), 3.5 per cent (2026), 1.9 per cent (2027); gross value added paths for 16 sectors.", "details": "Launched 20 January 2025; results 1 August 2025. Bank-by-bank disclosure; sectoral granularity introduced in 2023.", "strengths": [ "Gross value added paths for 16 sectors", "Bank-by-bank disclosure across 64 banks", "A geopolitical trigger, specified in macro terms" ], "weaknesses": [ "EU banking only", "One adverse scenario per exercise", "Run every two years" ], "took": "The cumulative GDP path for S01; the sectoral-granularity idea for future loading tables.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "EU-wide stress testing", "url": "https://www.eba.europa.eu/risk-and-data-analysis/risk-analysis/eu-wide-stress-testing" }, { "title": "2025 launch summary", "url": "https://mnb.hu/en/pressroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/the-eba-launches-its-2025-eu-wide-stress-test" } ] }, { "n": 10, "id": "lloyds-systemic-risk", "org": "Lloyd's Futureset", "partners": "With the Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies", "name": "Systemic Risk Scenarios", "type": "Systemic scenario set", "cadence": "Series published 2023–2025; seven instalments", "scope": "Global; 107 countries; economic impact as GDP at risk over five years; three severity levels (major, severe, extreme) with a probability-weighted average; an interactive data tool by country and region.", "focus": "Single systemic shocks and their five-year global cost: food and water shock (US$5 trillion); cyber attack on payment systems (US$3.5 trillion); global economic stagnation (US$5.2 trillion); geopolitical conflict closing major trade routes (US$14.5 trillion weighted, US$7.8 to 50 trillion); human pandemic (US$13.6 trillion weighted, up to 6.4 per cent of global GDP in the extreme case); extreme space weather (US$2.4 trillion weighted, US$1.2 to 9.1 trillion).", "details": "Europe is most exposed in the conflict scenario (up to US$3.4 trillion); Greater China and Asia Pacific in the food and water scenario, with the Caribbean losing 19 per cent of GDP. About a third of climate losses are insured. Lloyd's described the March 2025 space weather scenario as the seventh and final instalment.", "strengths": [ "Three severity levels with a probability-weighted loss", "One method across seven shocks, so losses compare", "Results by country and region in an open data tool" ], "weaknesses": [ "107 countries, not every nation", "Economic loss only; no view of which capabilities fail", "The series closed in March 2025" ], "took": "The three severity tiers; five-year impact accounting; the systemic-impact calibration points; regional exposure presentation; the 107-nation benchmark that GINC extends to 197.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "Systemic risk scenarios, series home", "url": "https://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insights/futureset/futureset-insights/systemic-risk-scenarios" }, { "title": "Geopolitical conflict (October 2024)", "url": "https://www.lloyds.com/about-lloyds/media-centre/press-releases/geopolitical-conflict-scenario" }, { "title": "Human pandemic (December 2024)", "url": "https://www.lloyds.com/insights/media-centre/press-releases/human-pandemic-scenario" }, { "title": "Extreme space weather (March 2025)", "url": "https://www.lloyds.com/insights/media-centre/press-releases/extreme-space-weather-scenario" }, { "title": "Cyber attack on payment systems (October 2023)", "url": "https://www.lloyds.com/insights/media-centre/press-releases/lloyds-systemic-risk-scenario-reveals-global-economy-exposed-to-3.5trn-from-major-cyber-attack" }, { "title": "Global economic stagnation", "url": "https://www.lloyds.com/insights/news/lloyds-systemic-risk-scenario-reveals-global-economic-stagnation-could-cost-5.2trn" }, { "title": "Food and water shock (October 2023), press coverage", "url": "https://www.sgvoice.net/strategy/research/46156/climate-induced-food-and-water-shocks-risk-5-trillion-losses-lloyds/" } ] }, { "n": 11, "id": "cambridge-global-risk-index", "org": "Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies", "partners": "Judge Business School, University of Cambridge; with Lloyd's for the City Risk Index", "name": "Cambridge Global Risk Index and Lloyd's City Risk Index", "type": "Systemic scenario set", "cadence": "Global Risk Index 2018 and 2019; City Risk Index 2018", "scope": "279 cities representing 41 per cent of global GDP; 22 threats in five classes: natural catastrophe and climate; finance, economics and trade; geopolitics and security; technology and space; health and humanity.", "focus": "Expected annual GDP at risk by city and threat: about US$540 to 547 billion a year, with man-made threats accounting for more than half.", "details": "Built on the Cambridge Taxonomy of Business Risks. The same team models the Lloyd's systemic risk scenarios.", "strengths": [ "A coherent taxonomy of 22 threats in five classes", "One loss metric across natural and man-made threats", "City-level resolution" ], "weaknesses": [ "Cities, not nations", "Last edition 2019", "GDP at risk only" ], "took": "The five families; the threat classes as a completeness check for the Library.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "Cambridge Global Risk Index 2018, executive summary (PDF)", "url": "https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/crs-cambridge-global-risk-index-exec-summary-2018.pdf" }, { "title": "Lloyd's City Risk Index, press release", "url": "https://www.lloyds.com/insights/media-centre/press-releases/city-risk-index" } ] }, { "n": 12, "id": "ngfs-climate-scenarios", "org": "Network for Greening the Financial System", "partners": "Modelled by IIASA, PIK, the University of Maryland, Climate Analytics and NIESR", "name": "NGFS Climate Scenarios", "type": "Climate scenario set", "cadence": "Phases I–V, 2020 to November 2024; short-term scenarios May 2025", "scope": "Global, with country and sector detail. Long-term scenarios to 2050 and 2100 in four quadrants (orderly, disorderly, hot house world, too little too late); Phase V names Net Zero 2050, Below 2°C, Low Demand, Delayed Transition, Fragmented World, Nationally Determined Contributions and Current Policies. A short-term set of four five-year scenarios: Highway to Paris, Sudden Wake-Up Call, Disasters and Policy Stagnation, Diverging Realities.", "focus": "Climate transition and physical risk for financial stability assessment; the de facto standard for supervisory climate stress tests.", "details": "Free and versioned by phase, with full technical documentation and data on the NGFS Scenario Explorer. Used by well over 100 central banks and supervisors. Critiqued for understating physical risk (Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, 'The Emperor's New Climate Scenarios', 2023).", "strengths": [ "Free, versioned by phase and fully documented", "Country and sector detail in an open explorer", "The standard that supervisors already use" ], "weaknesses": [ "Climate only", "Critiqued for understating physical risk", "Mostly long-run pathways; the shock-length scenarios arrived only in 2025" ], "took": "Phase versioning with change documentation; explorer tooling; quadrant tiering and memorable scenario names; the short-term and long-term split as a model for shocks versus trends.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "NGFS scenarios portal", "url": "https://www.ngfs.net/ngfs-scenarios-portal/" }, { "title": "Short-term scenarios (May 2025), summary", "url": "https://senecaesg.com/insights/ngfs-releases-its-first-short-term-climate-scenarios" } ] }, { "n": 13, "id": "eu-preparedness-union", "org": "European Commission", "partners": "With the High Representative; building on the Niinistö report 'Safer Together' (October 2024)", "name": "European Preparedness Union Strategy", "type": "Preparedness strategy", "cadence": "JOIN(2025) 130, 26 March 2025", "scope": "European Union; 30 key actions.", "focus": "All-hazards, whole-of-society and whole-of-government preparedness: an EU-wide comprehensive risk and threat assessment; a crisis dashboard; population self-sufficiency of at least 72 hours; an EU stockpiling strategy; regular EU-wide preparedness exercises; civil–military cooperation; a public–private preparedness task force; a crisis coordination hub.", "details": "Implementation of the comprehensive risk assessment and the stockpiling strategy was in progress through 2025–2026. There is no published EU scenario set yet.", "strengths": [ "All-hazards and whole-of-society in scope", "Concrete standards, such as 72 hours of household self-sufficiency", "Links assessment to stockpiles and exercises" ], "weaknesses": [ "A strategy, not a scenario set", "The EU risk and threat assessment is not yet published", "No ratings of likelihood or impact" ], "took": "The 72-hour household standard in the public stakeholder blocks; the forthcoming EU risk assessment as a counterpart to track.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "European Preparedness Union", "url": "https://commission.europa.eu/topics/preparedness_en" } ] }, { "n": 14, "id": "allianz-risk-barometer", "org": "Allianz Commercial", "partners": null, "name": "Allianz Risk Barometer 2026", "type": "Business survey", "cadence": "Annual; 15th edition, January 2026", "scope": "3,338 risk-management experts in 97 countries and territories; top business risks globally and by region, country, industry and company size.", "focus": "2026: cyber incidents 42 per cent, first for the fifth year and the highest score yet; artificial intelligence 32 per cent, from tenth to second and the biggest mover; business interruption 29 per cent; changes in legislation and regulation fourth; political risks and violence seventh, its highest ranking.", "details": "Survey-based: useful for business perception, not for likelihood.", "strengths": [ "A large sample across 97 countries", "Cuts by region, country, industry and company size", "Fifteen editions, so shifts in perception show" ], "weaknesses": [ "A perception survey", "Risks to businesses, not to nations", "No likelihood, severity or scenario specification" ], "took": "Perception anchors for S12 and S13; evidence for the stakeholder views.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "Allianz Risk Barometer 2026", "url": "https://www.allianz.com/en/economic_research/insights/publications/specials_fmo/260114-Allianz-Risk-Barometer.html" } ] }, { "n": 15, "id": "imf-debt-sustainability", "org": "International Monetary Fund and World Bank", "partners": null, "name": "Debt Sustainability Frameworks", "type": "Debt stress framework", "cadence": "Low-income framework reviewed 2017, guidance 2018; market-access framework reviewed 2021, guidance 2022", "scope": "All IMF member countries, through Article IV and programme work. Two frameworks: the Debt Sustainability Framework for Low-Income Countries and the Sovereign Risk and Debt Sustainability Framework for market-access countries.", "focus": "Standardised stress tests on sovereign debt paths (growth, primary balance, exports, exchange rate, contingent liabilities, natural disaster, commodity prices) plus tailored scenarios; risk ratings for external and overall debt distress.", "details": "The closest existing instrument to a standardised stress test applied to every country. Parameters are published and consistent across nations.", "strengths": [ "Applied to every member country", "Published parameters, the same for all", "Standard shocks plus tailored scenarios" ], "weaknesses": [ "Sovereign debt only", "Macro-fiscal variables; no view of capability", "Run country by country, not as a common global scenario" ], "took": "The shock conventions and variant structure for S04.", "avoided": null, "reports": [ { "title": "Debt sustainability analysis", "url": "https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/dsa/" } ] } ], "secondary_note": "Cited in scenario anchors; not re-verified in this pass.", "secondary": [ { "name": "UK Exercise Cygnus and the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 1 report", "note": "Pandemic influenza exercise of October 2016, unpublished until 2020; inquiry report of July 2024.", "url": "https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/" }, { "name": "Global Health Security Index", "note": "Nuclear Threat Initiative and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security; 2019 and 2021 editions.", "url": "https://ghsindex.org/" }, { "name": "US National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2040", "note": "Published 2021, with five scenarios.", "url": "https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home" }, { "name": "IPCC scenario framework", "note": "SSPs and RCPs; AR6 illustrative pathways; the IIASA SSP database.", "url": "https://www.ipcc.ch/" }, { "name": "IEA World Energy Outlook scenarios", "note": "STEPS, APS and NZE.", "url": "https://www.iea.org/topics/world-energy-outlook" }, { "name": "Shell Scenarios", "note": "Long-running corporate scenario practice.", "url": "https://www.shell.com/scenarios" }, { "name": "Lloyd's Realistic Disaster Scenarios", "note": "Annual syndicate exercise set.", "url": "https://www.lloyds.com/" }, { "name": "FEMA National Preparedness Goal", "note": "THIRA/SPR and the 32 core capabilities.", "url": "https://www.fema.gov/" }, { "name": "Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security exercises", "note": "Dark Winter 2001, Clade X 2018, Event 201 2019, Catastrophic Contagion 2022.", "url": "https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/" } ], "conventions": [ { "convention": "Three severity tiers: major, severe, extreme", "source": "Lloyd's and Cambridge", "lands": "Common slider 1; presets" }, { "convention": "Assess every scenario at one common intensity for comparability", "source": "Swiss FOCP", "lands": "Standard Severe as the comparability anchor" }, { "convention": "Reasonable worst case: the worst plausible manifestation once highly unlikely variations are discounted", "source": "UK NRR", "lands": "Standard Extreme" }, { "convention": "Five likelihood bands with explicit probability ranges", "source": "UK NRR", "lands": "Likelihood scale" }, { "convention": "Two horizons for likelihood", "source": "WEF (two and ten years); NRR (two and five)", "lands": "Two-year and ten-year ratings" }, { "convention": "Likelihood and impact tiers", "source": "CFR; NRR matrix", "lands": "Priority score and tiers; the matrix page" }, { "convention": "Five-year impact accounting; GDP at risk", "source": "Lloyd's and Cambridge; Bank of England horizon", "lands": "Systemic impact scale" }, { "convention": "Multi-dimensional national impact", "source": "NRR (seven dimensions); Swiss (four)", "lands": "National impact scale" }, { "convention": "Chronic risks assessed separately from acute shocks", "source": "UK NRR; WEF composition", "lands": "Trends product; amplifying trends on each scenario" }, { "convention": "Borrowed macro calibrations, declared", "source": "Fed, Bank of England, EBA", "lands": "S01, S03 and S09 Standard Severe parameters" }, { "convention": "Standardised sovereign shock conventions", "source": "IMF and World Bank", "lands": "S04" }, { "convention": "Concrete scenario specification", "source": "Norway DSB", "lands": "Narrative, parameters and anchor blocks" }, { "convention": "Phase versioning, documentation and explorer tooling", "source": "NGFS", "lands": "Library versions, change log, data page and matrix" }, { "convention": "Five threat families", "source": "Cambridge threat classes", "lands": "Families A to E" }, { "convention": "72-hour household self-sufficiency", "source": "EU Preparedness Union Strategy", "lands": "Public stakeholder blocks" }, { "convention": "Annual top-10 release with movement", "source": "Eurasia Group (format); WEF (movement)", "lands": "Edition structure" }, { "convention": "Stakeholder and regional splits from one survey", "source": "WEF; Allianz", "lands": "Stakeholder and regional views from the panel tags" } ] }