Tested hypothesis (intent)I2

Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher)

Part of a thought experiment. One of the readings tested in a deliberately contrarian question: suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this; what would we expect to see, and do we see it? Not the author’s belief. How the test works.

A thought experiment, not the author's view. The pressure was applied at least partly because Canada's predictable response (permitting, building and exporting) serves US goals. This needs foresight and desire, not management or timing.

Note

“Or higher”: this row includes the levels above it.

Includes

I3: Worked-out plan with specific targets

Tests that bear on it

• P1: "No deal before the law" (a test of the foresight thought experiment) Open

  Expects: A deal or easing within 120 days of A, with a vague stated reason · if seen, counts for this reading

• P5: Pressure returns if the build-out stalls Open

  Expects: New or renewed US pressure within 90 days, timed to the stall (after the controls for Canadian defiance and the usual rate of escalations) · if seen, counts for this reading

• P6: Tariff-action test around the new laws Open

  Expects: (a) New US restrictive actions after A fewer than before A, and at least one easing act after A · if seen, counts for this reading

• P7: Churchill Falls definitive agreements by 2027-03-31 Open

  Expects: No different prediction from the other readings on this test. · if seen, no change

• P8: BC Bill 15 switched on within 12 months of the 2026-10-24 election Open

  Expects: No different prediction from the other readings on this test. · if seen, no change

• P9: Quebec fast-track test, strict and loose, by 2027-10-05 Open

  Expects: No different prediction on Washington's intent · if seen, no change

• P10: Fragmentation watch Open

  Expects: US quiet or helpful while Ottawa passes C-39; no support for Indigenous litigation; no province-specific offers; easing within the window of the "No deal before the law" test · if seen, counts for this reading

• P11: Alberta referendum, 2026-10-19 Open

  Expects: The leverage reading (Ottawa concessions after the vote) does not separate the foresight reading from plain self-interest · if seen, no change

• P12: October platforms: "soft before, hard after" Open

  Expects: No different prediction from the other readings on this test. · if seen, no change

• P13: Next Conservative federal platform Open

  Expects: No different prediction from the other readings on this test. · if seen, no change

• P14: "Was it foreseen?" (foresight test 1) Scored

  Expects: Foresight documents found and tied to administration circles · if seen, counts for this reading

• P15: "Asymmetry" (foresight test 2) Open

  Expects: Consistent asymmetry where the protection costs the US something plain self-interest wouldn't pay; no consistent asymmetry counts slightly against this reading · if seen, counts for this reading

• P16: "Rerouting constraint" (foresight test 3) Open

  Expects: No constraint while rerouting capacity grows through A+12 months (a constraint built into early deal terms counts at most slightly for this reading) · if seen, counts for this reading

• P21: "The build-out laws outlast the campaign" Open

  Expects: No different prediction from the other readings on this test. · if seen, no change

Other readings on this scale: I0a · I0b · I1 · I3. All of them, side by side, on the odds page.