How each dimension is scored
Each dimension is scored on a one-to-seven ordinal rubric for a directional relationship. The assessment is
always taken from the source nation's perspective toward a target nation within a single capability domain, so
the source-to-target reading and the target-to-source reading are produced independently and need not agree.
It is this directionality that makes Leverage, Exposure and Imbalance possible downstream.
Each score is produced as an ensemble across six analytical personas, each reasoning consistently within its own
school of thought, so the published figure reflects a deliberate spread of interpretive perspectives rather than a
single house view. The personas are expected to diverge — a Realist, for instance, will score dependence higher
and cooperation lower than a Dove — and that spread is treated as a feature, surfaced rather than averaged away.
Realist — weighs power, security and relative gains; reads reliance as vulnerability.
Liberal Institutionalist — credits institutions, treaties and interdependence as stabilising.
Hawk — assumes adversarial intent; scores ties through threat and worst-case contingency.
Dove — favours engagement and de-escalation; reads dependence as mutual and benign.
Economic Rationalist — follows the incentives: trade, cost and comparative advantage.
Historical Analogist — reasons from precedent and the long arc of the relationship.
Strategic Dependence
How much the source nation relies on the target nation within a single capability domain.
Why it mattersThe load-bearing dimension. The directional dependence scores are the raw edges of the graph from which Leverage, Exposure, Chokepoints, Fragility and Imbalance are all computed. It captures reliance as the source nation itself perceives it, rather than an outside estimate.
1
No dependence. Fully self-sufficient; the target nation is irrelevant to this capability.
2
Negligible dependence. Minimal exposure; substitution or absorption would be straightforward.
3
Low dependence. Some reliance acknowledged but peripheral and manageable.
4
Moderate dependence. Meaningful reliance; disruption would be noticeable but recoverable.
5
Significant dependence. Substantial reliance; disruption would materially impair capability.
6
High dependence. Structurally exposed; alternatives are limited and costly.
7
Critical dependence. Cannot function in this domain without the target nation; no viable substitutes exist.
Relationship Intensity
The density and frequency of engagement between the source and target nation in a domain.
Why it mattersThe density and frequency of engagement. It distinguishes a deep, active relationship from a dormant one, and underpins the Reach signal and the relationship-strength readings.
1
No engagement. No known interactions, flows or touchpoints in this domain.
2
Negligible engagement. Only rare or vestigial contact.
3
Low engagement. Occasional engagement; no sustained mechanisms in place.
4
Moderate engagement. Regular interaction across some channels; established but limited mechanisms.
5
Active engagement. Frequent engagement across multiple channels with standing mechanisms.
6
High engagement. Dense, institutionalised interaction across most relevant channels.
7
Deeply embedded engagement. Continuous and deep enmeshment in this domain.
Cooperative Orientation
Where the tie sits on the spectrum from collaboration to adversarialism.
Why it mattersThe qualitative texture that separates a dependence built on alliance from one built on coercion, and the basis for reading allies and adversaries against actual behaviour.
1
Openly adversarial. Actively seeks to harm, block or undermine the target nation's capability.
2
Strongly competitive. Treats the target as a deliberate rival; decoupling or containment underway.
3
Mildly competitive. Competing interests dominate; cooperation is limited or tactical only.
4
Transactional. Neither cooperative nor adversarial; engagement is interest-based and arms-length.
5
Mildly cooperative. Shared interests outweigh tensions; some genuine collaboration exists.
6
Strongly cooperative. Sustained collaboration with high trust and coordination.
7
Deeply allied. Fully strategically aligned; integrated cooperation with shared objectives and mutual commitment.
Relationship Momentum
The direction of travel in the relationship over the past 12–24 months.
Why it mattersThe change dimension. It feeds the Momentum and Decoupling signals once the historical series is in place, capturing whether a tie is deepening or unwinding rather than its standing level.
1
Rapid deterioration. Relationship collapsing; active rupture or escalation underway.
2
Clear deterioration. Meaningful decline in engagement, trust or cooperation.
3
Mild deterioration. Slight negative drift; early warning signals present.
4
Stable. No meaningful change in either direction.
5
Mild improvement. Slight positive trend; early signs of warming.
6
Clear improvement. Meaningful gains in engagement, trust or cooperation.
7
Rapid improvement. Relationship accelerating positively; significant deepening underway.