Major Categories Doomscrolling Monitors
Coverage is balanced across strategic, technical, ecological, financial, and governance risks. A topic enters the queue when it has a credible pathway to systemic disruption.
| Category | Core signal | System pathway |
|---|---|---|
| Nuclear proliferation and deterrence breakdown | Verification loss, use-threshold rhetoric, deployment shifts | Escalation risk rises when timelines become uncertain |
| AI alignment and autonomous weapons | Autonomy in active warfare, rapid capability jumps, weak controls | Decision speed outpaces governance and human oversight |
| Bioengineering and synthetic biology misuse | Dual-use tool diffusion, safety oversight gaps, misuse indicators | Lower barriers to high-impact biological harm |
| Pandemic signals | Unusual clusters, cross-border spread, healthcare strain | Containment delay increases regional and global spillover |
| Climate tipping points | Persistent anomaly regimes and tipping-evidence consensus | Irreversible change amplifies long-tail global shocks |
| Freshwater scarcity | Basin allocation conflict, multi-season deficits, rationing | Water stress hits food systems, migration, and governance |
| Global debt and sovereign-finance stress | Rollover stress, reserve drawdowns, payment friction | Financial contagion can transmit rapidly across borders |
| Cyberwarfare escalation | Critical exploits, backbone incidents, cross-sector disruptions | Digital outages cascade into real-world infrastructure stress |
| Energy-grid vulnerabilities | Grid stress alerts, transformer bottlenecks, fuel constraints | Energy instability increases systemic economic fragility |
| Food-system fragility | Crop-failure clusters, logistics disruptions, price spikes | Supply shocks raise humanitarian and political risk |
| Democratic backsliding at scale | Institutional capture, rule-of-law erosion, election integrity stress | Governance degradation reduces crisis response capacity |
| Space militarization | Counterspace tests, satellite interference, launch posture changes | Space disruptions degrade communication and timing systems |
| Semiconductor chokepoints | Export-control shifts, fabrication disruption, supply concentration | Compute and industrial bottlenecks spread across sectors |
| Critical-mineral conflicts | Extraction disruptions, export restrictions, corridor insecurity | Resource chokepoints constrain energy and manufacturing |
So what: category coverage is broad by design to reduce blind spots and single-domain bias.
Terminology
These are the core terms used in analyses and monitoring briefs.
| Term | Plain-language meaning | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Risk signal | A new datapoint that changes probability, impact, timeline, or reversibility. | Signals trigger reassessment before full crisis conditions appear. |
| Threat mechanism | The concrete pathway by which harm propagates through systems. | Mechanisms prevent vague analysis and force testable logic. |
| Cascading effects | Second-order spillovers into energy, finance, health, logistics, or governance. | Most catastrophic costs come from cascades, not first events. |
| Countervailing forces | Mitigations that can slow, contain, or reverse risk escalation. | Prevents one-sided collapse framing and improves calibration. |
| Confirmed facts | On-record claims with primary documentation or strong corroboration. | Forms the hard boundary of the evidence base. |
| Developing information | Credible but incomplete reporting that may change as evidence arrives. | Used with caution and lower confidence until verified. |
| Primary source | Original data, statement, filing, transcript, or technical document. | Reduces dependence on source-family repetition. |
| Confidence level | High, Moderate, or Low certainty in evidence quality and model assumptions. | Shows how fragile or stable the current threat grade is. |
| Scope label | Local, Regional, Global, Civilizational, or Existential impact boundary. | Separates geographic scale from severity score. |
Related terms: IAEA safeguards, continuity of knowledge, verification gap.
So what: shared definitions make updates comparable across events and time horizons.
Evidence Quality and Source Independence
Evidence quality is weighted to avoid overconfidence from repeated claims. The publication threshold checks source count, independence, and whether core claims rely on primary documentation.
| Source tier | Typical examples | Confidence weight | Independence rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary documentation | Official statement, regulator filing, dataset release, transcript, technical paper | High | Counts as one source family even if republished elsewhere |
| Independent corroboration | Investigative outlet adding new facts, field reporting, named expert analysis | Moderate | At least two independent families required for contested claims |
| Source-family repetition | Multiple outlets repeating one wire, one anonymous memo, or one screenshot | Low | Treated as one family until independent details appear |
| Unverified lead | Social post, anonymous channel, unsourced viral claim | Very low | Used only as a lead and cannot anchor threat grade |
| Check | Threshold | If unmet |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum source set | At least 3 credible sources per article | Blocks publish if below threshold |
| Primary source requirement | At least 1 primary source link for full analysis articles | If unavailable, mark claim as reported and lower confidence |
| Timeline corroboration | Fast-moving crisis timelines require 2 source families | Unresolved conflict reduces confidence and may lower probability score |
So what: three headlines repeating one wire does not count as three independent confirmations.
Threat Scoring Model
Doomscrolling scores each analysis on two dimensions. Impact is scored 0-5. Probability is scored 0-5. Composite threat score equals Impact x Probability, producing a 0-25 score.
| Score | Impact interpretation | Probability interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | No meaningful systemic disruption expected | Effectively no credible pathway in current horizon |
| 1 | Limited and mostly local disruption | Low plausibility under current conditions |
| 2 | Material but containable multi-sector stress | Plausible with specific trigger conditions |
| 3 | Severe regional stress and durable spillovers | Meaningful likelihood without strong mitigation |
| 4 | Global disruption potential with high human and economic cost | High likelihood in one or more realistic scenarios |
| 5 | Civilizational or existential-scale consequences | Very high likelihood of materialization in horizon |
| Composite score | Threat category |
|---|---|
| 0-5 | Low |
| 6-10 | Moderate |
| 11-15 | Serious |
| 16-20 | Severe |
| 21-25 | Critical |
| Scope | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Local | Contained impact to one city or small subnational area |
| Regional | Cross-border or multi-state impact in one region |
| Global | Material impact across multiple global systems |
| Civilizational | Long-run degradation of core institutions and capacity |
| Existential | Threatens humanity's long-term survival or potential |
So what: the score shows severity, while scope and confidence show spread and evidence stability.
How Scores Change
Scores are revised when trigger conditions are met, not when narrative pressure rises. Impact and probability are moved separately to avoid hidden double-counting.
| Trigger class | Evidence threshold | Impact move | Probability move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verified state-on-state strike or missile exchange | 2 independent source families within 24 hours | Impact +0 to +1 unless critical infrastructure is hit | Probability +1 immediately |
| Primary-source verification loss from a regulator or watchdog | On-record statement confirming monitoring blind spot | Impact unchanged unless failure pathway broadens | Probability +1 for escalation scenarios |
| Confirmed attack on energy, grid, backbone internet, or payment rails | Primary evidence plus one independent corroborator | Impact +1 to +2 due to systemic cascade potential | Probability +0 to +1 depending on response pace |
| Credible de-escalation mechanism verified | Documented ceasefire, inspection restoration, or third-party monitoring | Impact usually unchanged in short term | Probability -1 if compliance holds for 72 hours or more |
So what: explicit thresholds make revisions auditable and reduce arbitrary score drift.
Calibration Case Studies
Calibration cases compare an initial grade with later revisions and record why the score moved. This keeps the model falsifiable and improves consistency over time.
| Case | Initial state | Revised state | Why it changed |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAEA verification blind spot in Iran | Initial score: 12/25, Serious, Regional | Revised score: 15/25, Serious, Regional | Probability moved up after additional reporting and force-posture indicators reduced confidence in near-term stabilization. |
| Israel-Iran strike exchange reporting | Initial score: 16/25, Severe, Regional | Revised score: 20/25, Severe, Regional | Probability and impact moved up after cross-source evidence of active exchange and broader domain spillover channels. |
| Ethiopia Marburg post-outbreak monitoring | Initial score posture: Watchlist monitoring only | Revised posture: remains watchlist unless new confirmed clusters appear | Primary health indicators improved, so threshold for full long-form analysis was not met. |
So what: score history explains not just what changed, but the evidence threshold that changed it.
Watchlist Promotion Criteria
The watchlist tracks emerging signals. A topic is promoted to full analysis when evidence quality and systemic relevance pass explicit thresholds.
| Criterion | Threshold | Promotion action |
|---|---|---|
| Systemic relevance | At least one plausible cascading pathway into energy, finance, governance, health, or deterrence | Eligible for full article |
| Evidence minimum | 3 credible sources and 1 primary source when available | Eligible for full article |
| Threat change signal | Probability or impact baseline changes by at least one point | Escalate from watchlist to full risk assessment |
| Decision relevance | Event introduces a concrete decision trigger within 0-2 years | Escalate from watchlist to full risk assessment |
Related analysis: Watchlist.
So what: promotion rules keep editorial gating consistent across domains and reduce reactive publishing.
Methodology Version Log
Methodology changes are versioned in UTC to preserve comparability across publication windows. If scoring rules shift, the change and its comparability impact are published here.
| UTC timestamp | Version | Change | Comparability impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-28 09:45 UTC | v1.3 | Added explicit score-change trigger matrix and calibration-case section | Improves revision consistency versus earlier narrative-only updates |
| 2026-02-28 09:45 UTC | v1.3 | Added source-quality weighting and source-family independence rules | Reduces overcounting risk when multiple outlets repeat one claim |
| 2026-02-28 09:45 UTC | v1.3 | Published watchlist-to-article promotion thresholds | Improves editorial gating transparency across domains |
So what: versioned rules let readers compare scores across time without hidden rubric changes.
How To Read Score Changes
- A higher score means larger expected harm, higher likelihood, or both.
- A stable score with lower confidence means uncertainty increased, not necessarily risk decreased.
- A scope shift from Regional to Global signals broader spillover channels.
- Numeric scoring is concentrated in the Threat Grade section of each analysis.
Doomscrolling analyses are AI-assisted with human editorial oversight. Errors can occur, especially in fast-moving or partial-information environments.
So what: treat each score as a decision aid tied to evidence quality, not a fixed prediction.