Historical Review

Why older forecasts were accurate or inaccurate.

CMIP5 high-emissions manufacturing stress case

The model directionally captured hotter operating conditions and more frequent disruption, but overstated the uniformity of regional stress.

Why it worked

The physical direction of travel was right: heat and disruption pressure rose.

Why it failed

The scenario compressed regional heterogeneity and adaptation effects.

Lesson: Use ensembles and regional transmission layers rather than reading a global scenario as an asset-level forecast.

Early-pandemic macro baseline miss

Pre-shock macro baselines missed the scale and speed of pandemic-era distortion in labor, supply chains, and inflation dynamics.

Why it worked

Policy-sensitive models adapted faster once the shock path was explicit.

Why it failed

Baseline assumptions were not built for compound global disruption and policy overhang.

Lesson: Stress regimes must be explicit and not treated as tails that can be ignored.

Legacy IAM energy transition forecast

Long-run transition direction was right, but short-run financing, mineral bottlenecks, and policy divergence were under-modeled.

Why it worked

The strategic direction of technology substitution held.

Why it failed

Short-run bottlenecks and sectoral frictions were treated too lightly.

Lesson: Do not confuse long-run welfare logic with operating-sequence realism.

Insurance coastal exposure review

Forecasts that combined hazard concentration with insurance repricing and capital pressure were directionally strong.

Why it worked

The model linked climate exposure to financial transmission channels instead of stopping at hazard maps.

Why it failed

Local regulatory responses still created pockets of deviation.

Lesson: Industry transmission is the difference between generic risk mapping and useful operating forecasts.