INDEPENDENT POLICY & RESEARCHConceptual framework Edition 0.16.4
Safe NationsDiscuss cooperation
Examine the assumptions

MAR Research Lab

Could cooperation help essential services keep running when supplies are delayed, warnings are disputed, or a shared system goes down? Explore the ideas, try fictional numbers, and see what evidence would justify a conclusion.

How do I start?

Choose one hypothesis and ask what would change for people. For energy continuity, that might mean how long a service takes to restore. Use the outcome estimator to see what your assumptions imply, then read the evaluation guides to see what a real test would require. The 20 original hypotheses are untested. Comparing them side by side gives you questions to investigate; the estimator runs a separate exercise with the inputs you enter.

Real cases in trade, oil, and diesel

See what happened, which hypotheses could work together, and what records you would need to estimate an outcome.

Browse all eight trade and fuel cases

Civilian outcome worksheet

Compare how current arrangements, structured cooperation without AI, and Mutual AI Resilience (MAR) could perform under the quantities you enter. Use a fictional example or replace it with aggregate figures for a two-day supply exercise, a staff review batch, or a service recovery check.

The worksheet applies the same arithmetic to each approach. Use the result to identify a bottleneck, compare staff time with errors, or check what a recovery test established. The results describe your inputs and do not establish the effect of a selected research hypothesis.

In the fictional supply exercise, 60 crates start on hand. Confirmed receipts add 30 on day one and 50 on day two. With the listed demand, expiry and delivery limits, each approach can serve 135 of 150 crates of demand. Fifteen crates of demand are missed on their original day.

How do I evaluate a claim about cooperation?

Write down the decision before looking at the results. Compare the current process, organized cooperation without AI, and the same process with AI assistance. Give all three the same information, staffing, and resources. Record benefits and drawbacks in their original units. For example, faster review can come with more mistakes.

Read a worked example

Follow the inputs through the calculations, then see what you could conclude from the result.

Plan a real evaluation

Use the advanced guides to define outcomes, handle missing data, test whether two changes interact, and write a result someone else can check.

Choose an outcome for one of the 20 hypotheses Read the original source records

Explore related tools

The Scenario Studio is for country and trade tabletop exercises. The Workbench has calculators for individual questions, including stock, service coverage, costs, and review errors.

Open Scenario Studio Read the U.S., China, and Russia scenarios Browse all Workbench calculators

Suggested starting points

Three policy questions to examine.

These starting points are single source hypotheses. Their proposed benefits have not been validated.

MAR + Sovereign Autonomy

Cooperate without handing over control.

Limited exchanges between independently run systems could support cooperation while preserving each participant’s authority.

Review the connection
MAR + Energy Continuity

Keep recovery focused on essential power.

Verified warnings about electricity disruptions could help participants coordinate restoration.

Review the connection
MAR + Information Integrity

Check the evidence behind a crisis claim.

Independent checks of where evidence came from could help identify fabricated crisis information.

Review the connection