Pre-registered prediction P15Open
"Asymmetry" (foresight test 2)
This test belongs to the thought experiment about US intent: it states in advance what each reading expects, so the result can count for or against any of them, including the foresight reading.
- Registered
- Window
- 27 September 2026
Open-ended; reviewed at A+120 days (A = the later Royal Assent of Bill C-39 and of the bill containing the Mega Deduction) - Status
- Open: The window has not closed; nothing has settled it yet.
What counts
The claim tested: US actions consistently protect the southbound leg (raw goods spared, the Keystone XL / Bridger permit, no objection to Canadian pipelines toward the US) while treating Canada's diversification leg differently (threats against Europe over the EU–Canada link, the China-deal threat, etc.).
What each result means: consistent asymmetry with no extra cost to the US fits the foresight reading and the plain self-interest reading both (plain self-interest also wants cheap raw inputs flowing south and dislikes Canada aligning with other blocs), so it counts for neither. Consistent asymmetry where the protection costs the US something it wouldn't pay for plain self-interest (e.g. sparing Canadian resources while hitting the same goods from other countries; overriding a US domestic interest to keep a southbound project moving) counts for the foresight reading. No consistent asymmetry (southbound flows hit, diversification left alone) counts slightly against the foresight reading.
What counts: only actions and formal documents. Threats that aren't carried out are recorded separately as statements; they don't count as asymmetry.
What each reading expects
| Reading | Expects | If seen |
|---|---|---|
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Consistent asymmetry with no extra cost fits plain self-interest and the foresight reading both, so it counts for neither | No change |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Consistent asymmetry where the protection costs the US something plain self-interest wouldn't pay; no consistent asymmetry counts slightly against this reading | Counts for it |
Observations
- Executive Order 14194 puts a 25% IEEPA tariff on all Mexican goods, with no lower rate for energy (unlike Canada's EO 14193)
Canada-only energy discount in the first order (Mexico got none): protection of the southbound leg, explained by refinery dependence; no cost beyond revenue. Confidence: medium.
- US Treasury removes Belaruskali from the sanctions list, easing sanctions on Belarus's potash sector
US eases sanctions on Belarusian potash, seeking a cheaper substitute for Canadian potash (an action). Cuts slightly against a Canadian supply lock-in; fits shopping for the cheapest input (the self-interest reading). Confidence: medium.
- Trump signs a presidential permit for the Bridger Pipeline expansion, which re-uses Keystone XL assets (about 550,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude initially)
US presidential permit for Prairie Connector (partial Keystone XL revival): an instance of the southbound-leg protection this test lists. Not scored (no cost-to-US test applied). Confidence: medium.
- Hoekstra on CBC: the US is 'in the market for three to four million more barrels of oil per day. Canada is a logical supplier'
A US statement tolerating Canadian resource diversification. Confidence: medium.
- Three Section 338 proclamations impose 50% tariffs on about US$20B of Canadian goods, including USMCA-compliant goods: the first known use of Section 338 to impose tariffs
Section 338 exempts energy, potash, critical minerals and fish, but the exemption template is global (IEEPA Annex II, Section 122 exclusions) and ~95% of the value Section 338 covers is autos. Consistent asymmetry with no extra US cost: no move under this test. Confidence: medium.
- US Army Corps of Engineers issues the permit for Enbridge's Line 5 tunnel ('a testament to President Trump's vision to ensure our nation's energy dominance')
A southbound-leg permit; a political cost but no fiscal cost to the US. Confidence: medium.
- Trump, hours after posting 'WE DON'T NEED CANADA', tells a phone rally for Oklahoma candidate Mike Mazzei: 'This country desperately needs aluminum… We get it all from Canada… and we need it badly'
Trump says the US 'desperately needs' Canadian aluminum, which nonetheless stays at the 50% Section 232 rate; the remark argued for an Oklahoma smelter. A processed input from Canada is hit, not protected. Confidence: medium.
- Trump at the UNGA (with Zelenskyy): 'We'll continue to go with Canada, but Belarus would like to sell it for a much lower price'
Trump: 'We'll continue to go with Canada' on potash but Belarus would sell cheaper; follows the Dec 2025 threat and the Section 338 potash exemption. A statement; consistency check only. Confidence: medium.
Corrections
Adds the rule on which evidence counts (actions and formal documents only; threats not carried out are recorded as statements), part of the prediction as registered on 27 September 2026.
- What counts
- was
The claim tested: US actions consistently protect the southbound leg (raw goods spared, the Keystone XL / Bridger permit, no objection to Canadian pipelines toward the US) while treating Canada's diversification leg differently (threats against Europe over the EU–Canada link, the China-deal threat, etc.). What each result means: consistent asymmetry with no extra cost to the US fits the foresight reading and the plain self-interest reading both (plain self-interest also wants cheap raw inputs flowing south and dislikes Canada aligning with other blocs), so it counts for neither. Consistent asymmetry where the protection costs the US something it wouldn't pay for plain self-interest (e.g. sparing Canadian resources while hitting the same goods from other countries; overriding a US domestic interest to keep a southbound project moving) counts for the foresight reading. No consistent asymmetry (southbound flows hit, diversification left alone) counts slightly against the foresight reading.nowThe claim tested: US actions consistently protect the southbound leg (raw goods spared, the Keystone XL / Bridger permit, no objection to Canadian pipelines toward the US) while treating Canada's diversification leg differently (threats against Europe over the EU–Canada link, the China-deal threat, etc.). What each result means: consistent asymmetry with no extra cost to the US fits the foresight reading and the plain self-interest reading both (plain self-interest also wants cheap raw inputs flowing south and dislikes Canada aligning with other blocs), so it counts for neither. Consistent asymmetry where the protection costs the US something it wouldn't pay for plain self-interest (e.g. sparing Canadian resources while hitting the same goods from other countries; overriding a US domestic interest to keep a southbound project moving) counts for the foresight reading. No consistent asymmetry (southbound flows hit, diversification left alone) counts slightly against the foresight reading. What counts: only actions and formal documents. Threats that aren't carried out are recorded separately as statements; they don't count as asymmetry. - What counts fr
- was
Affirmation mise à l'épreuve : les gestes américains protègent systématiquement le volet vers le sud (produits bruts épargnés, permis Keystone XL / Bridger, aucune objection aux pipelines canadiens vers les États-Unis) tout en traitant différemment le volet de la diversification du Canada (menaces contre l'Europe au sujet du lien UE–Canada, menace liée à l'entente avec la Chine, etc.). Ce que veut dire chaque résultat : une asymétrie constante sans coût supplémentaire pour les États-Unis cadre à la fois avec la lecture de la prévoyance et avec celle du simple intérêt propre (le simple intérêt propre veut lui aussi que des intrants bruts bon marché circulent vers le sud et voit d'un mauvais œil le Canada se rapprocher d'autres blocs); elle ne compte donc pour aucune des deux. Une asymétrie constante où la protection coûte aux États-Unis quelque chose qu'ils ne paieraient pas par simple intérêt propre (p. ex. épargner les ressources canadiennes tout en frappant les mêmes produits venant d'autres pays; passer outre à un intérêt intérieur américain pour faire avancer un projet vers le sud) compte pour la lecture de la prévoyance. L'absence d'asymétrie constante (flux vers le sud frappés, diversification laissée tranquille) compte légèrement contre la lecture de la prévoyance.nowAffirmation mise à l'épreuve : les gestes américains protègent systématiquement le volet vers le sud (produits bruts épargnés, permis Keystone XL / Bridger, aucune objection aux pipelines canadiens vers les États-Unis) tout en traitant différemment le volet de la diversification du Canada (menaces contre l'Europe au sujet du lien UE–Canada, menace liée à l'entente avec la Chine, etc.). Ce que veut dire chaque résultat : une asymétrie constante sans coût supplémentaire pour les États-Unis cadre à la fois avec la lecture de la prévoyance et avec celle du simple intérêt propre (le simple intérêt propre veut lui aussi que des intrants bruts bon marché circulent vers le sud et voit d'un mauvais œil le Canada se rapprocher d'autres blocs); elle ne compte donc pour aucune des deux. Une asymétrie constante où la protection coûte aux États-Unis quelque chose qu'ils ne paieraient pas par simple intérêt propre (p. ex. épargner les ressources canadiennes tout en frappant les mêmes produits venant d'autres pays; passer outre à un intérêt intérieur américain pour faire avancer un projet vers le sud) compte pour la lecture de la prévoyance. L'absence d'asymétrie constante (flux vers le sud frappés, diversification laissée tranquille) compte légèrement contre la lecture de la prévoyance. Ce qui compte : seuls les gestes et les documents officiels. Les menaces non mises à exécution sont consignées à part comme déclarations; elles ne comptent pas comme asymétrie.