Educational companion dossier · Fact, interpretation, lived experience, clinical education, fiction, and mechanics are labeled separately. Scope & safety
PsychologicalWar.orgPeople before labels.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

WORLD EVENT LITERACY

Probability Bands, Consequence Magnitude, and Non-Additivity

Interpret source-authored annual probability, consequence magnitude, weighted score, and planning priority without converting them into calibrated forecasts or site rankings.

Read the working brief Choose a learning path
LEVEL 1

ORIENTATION

Why this matters

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

One-sentence brief

Numerical precision can create false confidence. The workbook’s formulas are useful only when their assumptions and limits remain visible.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Three key points

  1. Probability is an approximate source-authored annual estimate.
  2. Magnitude describes strategic scale, not moral value.
  3. Weighted score and priority are comparison aids, and overlapping probabilities must never be summed.
LEVEL 2

WORKING BRIEF

Evidence, context, and limits

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Approximate annual probability

The workbook assigns a percentage to each annualized scenario. It explicitly says the values are analytical judgments rather than statistically calibrated forecasts.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Probability bands

Remote is below 5%; Low is 5% to below 15%; Moderate is 15% to below 30%; Elevated is 30% to below 50%; High is 50% or above. A band is a workbook classification, not independent validation.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Consequence magnitude

Magnitude ranges from 1 to 5 and describes strategic scale. A beneficial scientific or governance breakthrough can receive magnitude 5 because its effects are large.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Weighted score

The workbook calculates probability divided by 100, multiplied by magnitude and 20. The 0–100 result is not expected casualties, financial loss, welfare, or social value.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Planning priority

Priority is a source formula intended to preserve attention to some low-frequency, high-consequence cases. It is not a site ranking, publication order, or authorization signal.

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Why probabilities do not add

Scenario families overlap, share causes, and may describe alternative manifestations of one structural risk. Adding their probabilities would double-count assumptions and produce a meaningless total.

LEVEL 3

COMPLETE DOSSIER

Limitations, game links, and review context

DISPUTED / MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS

Known limitations and gaps

  • The workbook is a user-supplied research and scenario-planning input, not an authenticated forecast or intelligence product.
  • Probability values are source-authored approximate annual estimates and have not been independently calibrated.
  • Scenario families overlap and their counts or probabilities must not be added.
  • Consequence paths are illustrative, not predicted outcomes.
  • The site provides no operational, publication, specialist, production, activation, or tuning authority.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Decision matrix

Scenario evidence and publication boundary matrix
Question Acceptable treatment Prohibited implication
Percentage Display as source-authored approximate annual estimate. Calibrated probability or objective likelihood.
Magnitude Describe strategic scale. Moral worth, harm value, or casualty estimate.
Weighted score Show formula and comparison-only role. Expected loss or universal risk score.
Priority Call it source planning priority. Site ranking or action authorization.
Portfolio Keep overlapping rows non-additive. Summing probabilities across scenarios.
REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Publication audit checklist

Formula

Is the workbook formula explained?

Pass condition: Readers can see how weighted score is calculated.

Calibration

Does the page deny independent calibration?

Pass condition: No percentage is called validated or predictive.

Non-additivity

Are overlapping scenarios explicitly non-additive?

Pass condition: Counts and percentages are never summed into a total likelihood.

Ranking

Is priority separated from site judgment?

Pass condition: Priority is described as a source field, not a site ranking.

Human impact

Are numbers kept separate from casualties and moral value?

Pass condition: Scores do not stand in for people, deaths, money, or rights.

LEVEL 4

RESEARCH EDITION

Sources, methods, and stable links

REAL-WORLD INTERPRETIVE

Linked reports

REAL-WORLD VERIFIED

Method and corrections

This page follows the public method for provenance, confidence, source independence, alternative accounts, limitations, review state, and visible correction.

Read the methodView corrections
NEXT

CONTINUE

Related learning

World Event Literacy1999–2026 World-Events Ledger: Reading 2,800 Source-Bounded RecordsHow to use a 100-record-per-year event ledger without converting a supplied dataset into an authoritative historical database.World Event Literacy2027–2036 Scenario Register: Reading 3,000 Fictional Planning RowsA field guide to the workbook’s 300 annualized scenario families, their visible fiction labels, source baselines, uncertainties, and conditional consequence paths.World Event LiteracyArchival Silences, Missing Records, and Local KnowledgeHow structural neglect, deliberate destruction, language barriers, custody, and editorial preference shape what can be known about an event.World Event LiteracyBefore-and-After, Document Readers, Statistical Panels, and Mixed ViewsWhen direct comparison, source inspection, measurement, or linked analysis is more useful than an animated map. Learning pathFrom Historical Record to Future Scenario Without False PredictionMove from the 1999–2026 source ledger into the 2027–2036 fictional register while preserving cutoffs, track identity, non-additive numerical limits, source baselines, uncertainty, and correction paths.