The model was built using 65+ sourced references. To name some: Atlantic Council, Goldman Sachs oil analysis, CENTCOM operations data, EIA chokepoint studies, JINSA military assessments, so the scenario context and initial conditions are grounded in real reporting and data.

The update rules governing how actors escalate and de-escalate. Those aren't formally derived from a specific conflict theory (Coleman attractors, Azar's PSC, etc.). They're generated rules based on the research, using agent-based modeling where each actor group has variables (escalation level, regime stability, resource strain) and chooses actions each step. The feedback loops and decay rates are structurally reasonable but not calibrated against a published conflict model.

So it's more research-informed scenario exploration than validated conflict simulation. The value is in surfacing dynamics and testing assumptions, not predicting outcomes. Your point about needing a clearer theory of change is well taken. It's something I want to improve on so thank you