{"reviews":[{"accuracy":"Partially Accurate","forecast_window":"2014 -> 2024","model_family":"Climate","outcome":"Observed disruption increased, but regional volatility remained more uneven than the original scenario implied.","summary":"The model directionally captured hotter operating conditions and more frequent disruption, but overstated the uniformity of regional stress.","title":"CMIP5 high-emissions manufacturing stress case","why":"Use ensembles and regional transmission layers rather than reading a global scenario as an asset-level forecast.","why_accurate":"The physical direction of travel was right: heat and disruption pressure rose.","why_inaccurate":"The scenario compressed regional heterogeneity and adaptation effects."},{"accuracy":"Inaccurate","forecast_window":"2019 -> 2021","model_family":"Economic","outcome":"Growth collapsed then rebounded unevenly while inflation and logistics shocks persisted longer than expected.","summary":"Pre-shock macro baselines missed the scale and speed of pandemic-era distortion in labor, supply chains, and inflation dynamics.","title":"Early-pandemic macro baseline miss","why":"Stress regimes must be explicit and not treated as tails that can be ignored.","why_accurate":"Policy-sensitive models adapted faster once the shock path was explicit.","why_inaccurate":"Baseline assumptions were not built for compound global disruption and policy overhang."},{"accuracy":"Partially Accurate","forecast_window":"2016 -> 2025","model_family":"Integrated Assessment","outcome":"Transition investment accelerated, but the path was more disorderly and supply constrained than the median narrative assumed.","summary":"Long-run transition direction was right, but short-run financing, mineral bottlenecks, and policy divergence were under-modeled.","title":"Legacy IAM energy transition forecast","why":"Do not confuse long-run welfare logic with operating-sequence realism.","why_accurate":"The strategic direction of technology substitution held.","why_inaccurate":"Short-run bottlenecks and sectoral frictions were treated too lightly."},{"accuracy":"Accurate","forecast_window":"2018 -> 2025","model_family":"Climate-Economy","outcome":"Premium pressure, withdrawal risk, and availability constraints all intensified in exposed regions.","summary":"Forecasts that combined hazard concentration with insurance repricing and capital pressure were directionally strong.","title":"Insurance coastal exposure review","why":"Industry transmission is the difference between generic risk mapping and useful operating forecasts.","why_accurate":"The model linked climate exposure to financial transmission channels instead of stopping at hazard maps.","why_inaccurate":"Local regulatory responses still created pockets of deviation."}]}