This page documents every specific prediction made at Rhodes Research, with the date the prediction was made, the resolution criteria specified in advance, and the result — including misses. A prediction without resolution criteria is an opinion. A forecasting record without misses is advocacy. This page is neither. It is updated as predictions resolve.
At a glance
8 entries so far: 6 scored forecasts (3 resolved, 3 open), 1 conditional diagnostic, 1 monitoring framework.
Open, by next resolution date
Resolved
Forecasting record last updated: October 19, 2026
Next update: November 23, 2026 (Prediction 6 — AI Governance close) · December 2026 (Prediction 5, Monitoring Framework 7 and Diagnostic 8 — full implementation audit)
Entry Types
Directional Forecast: A specific prediction of an outcome with defined resolution criteria, a time horizon, and a probability or confidence range. Scored CONFIRMED, PARTIALLY CONFIRMED, or DISCONFIRMED on its stated terms.
Conditional Diagnostic: Tests whether a specified observable signal is present or absent. The result reports what was observed, not a forecast success or failure. No score is assigned; the entry closes when the observation window ends.
Monitoring Framework: Tracks a set of behavioral indicators over a defined window. The purpose is to distinguish between competing explanations rather than predict a single outcome. Closes with a structured report of what each indicator showed; not scored as a prediction.
The distinction between correct result and correct reasoning is noted where observable. Getting an outcome right for the wrong mechanism is not a successful prediction — it is a partial one, and is scored accordingly.
Prediction 1
Xi Visit Media Framing
Date made: July 29, 2026 · Resolution date: September 27, 2026
Entry type: Directional Forecast
The Prediction
Whatever emerges from the Xi Jinping Washington visit, coverage will split along predictable lines, with each outlet selecting the true fact that best serves the story it had already decided to tell. The split will track institutional proximity to each government's messaging apparatus rather than simple ideological lean.
Resolution Criteria
Coverage splits between outlets emphasizing agreement and cooperation versus outlets emphasizing what was not conceded. The split tracks institutional proximity as the primary variable, not ideological lean.
Result
Coverage split exactly as predicted. Chinese state media — Xinhua, People's Daily — framed the visit as historic reaffirmation of strategic stability, emphasizing the tariff truce extension and Xi's "healthy competition within bounds" language. US mainstream outlets noted the optics of friendship but flagged the absence of breakthroughs on Taiwan, Iran, and technology controls. Policy-oriented outlets focused on structural tensions and framed the joint remarks as high-visibility but low-substance. The split tracked institutional proximity to each government's messaging apparatus, not ideological lean.
Honest Assessment
Full confirmation. The mechanism and the outcome aligned. The degree of ceremonial emphasis in Chinese coverage was stronger than anticipated — the "giant ship" metaphor and arrival ceremony dominated state media more than concrete policy outcomes. This amplified the selection mechanism beyond what the prediction anticipated but did not change the direction of the split.
Mechanism check:
Correct result, correct mechanism. Selection — not fabrication — drove the framing split. No qualification needed.
Status: CONFIRMED
↑ Back to summary
Prediction 2
Xi Visit Substance Signal
Date made: September 20, 2026 · Resolution date: September 27, 2026
Entry type: Directional Forecast
The Prediction
The signal separating a meaningful visit from a communiqué visit was whether origin verification language, bilateral customs data sharing provisions, or specific transshipping enforcement mechanisms appeared in the joint statement. If only AI safety framework language, renewed dialogue commitments, and aspirational trade principles appeared with no enforcement provisions, the structural condition was unchanged at the public commitment level.
Resolution Criteria
CONFIRMED if: joint statement contains origin verification language, bilateral customs data sharing provisions, or specific enforcement mechanisms for transshipping routes.
DISCONFIRMED if: joint statement contains only AI safety framework language, renewed dialogue commitments, and aspirational trade principles with no enforcement provisions.
Result
Verbatim joint statement language:
"The economic and trade teams of the two sides had a new round of consultations, and reached a new joint arrangement… To keep the economic and trade ties stable, the list of cooperation needs to be lengthened, and the list of issues shortened."
"The two sides can continue their dialogue on AI, exchange views on its risks and benefits, and jointly prevent the misuse and abuse of AI. AI must be kept under human control."
The joint statement contains no origin verification language, no bilateral customs data sharing provisions, and no specific transshipping enforcement mechanisms. The AI language is aspirational: continued dialogue, exchange of views, prevention of misuse. No timelines. No named oversight bodies. No binding commitments. The signal did not appear.
Honest Assessment
This prediction was wrong on the terms it was stated. The signal specified did not appear. That is a disconfirmation, not a near-miss. The reasoning behind the prediction — that meaningful commitments require enforceable language — remains sound. But a prediction is scored on its stated terms, not its reasoning. On those terms, this prediction failed.
Framework revision:
The signal set was too narrow. Both governments increasingly use private annexes and non-public working group agreements for sensitive enforcement topics. Three signals are added to future prediction cycles: (1) named working group activation within 60 days; (2) regulatory references to summit agreements in subsequent domestic actions within 90 days; (3) coordinated enforcement actions within 90 days. These additions are on the record before the December implementation audit.
Mechanism check:
Correct reasoning, incorrect signal. The underlying analytical claim — that the visit produced no publicly enforceable commitments — appears accurate. The specific signal chosen to test that claim was too narrow. Correct reasoning and incorrect signal are different failures. The framework revision addresses the signal failure.
Correction, October 19, 2026: This entry was briefly reclassified as a conditional diagnostic after its result was known. That reclassification is reversed. The entry was registered September 20, 2026 with resolution criteria stated in advance. The specified signal did not appear, so it is scored DISCONFIRMED.
Status: DISCONFIRMED
↑ Back to summary
Prediction 3
August Jobs Report Coverage
Date made: August 7, 2026 · Resolution date: August 19, 2026
Entry type: Directional Forecast
The Prediction
Coverage of the August 2026 jobs report would split along institutional proximity lines, with each outlet selecting the true fact that best served its pre-established frame.
Resolution Criteria
Split tracks messaging apparatus proximity as the primary variable.
Result
The split occurred but along a different axis than predicted: the primary divide was administration messaging apparatus versus all other outlets, rather than the institutional proximity variable as specified. The framing mechanism held but the axis of the split was wrong. Self-corrected publicly on August 19.
Honest Assessment
Correct result, partially wrong mechanism. The prediction identified that a split would occur — it did. The prediction misidentified the primary variable driving the split. This is a partial confirmation with a correction to the mechanism, not a full confirmation.
Status: PARTIALLY CONFIRMED
↑ Back to summary
Prediction 4
Yuan Internationalization
Date made: Rhodes Research Triangulation paper, 2026 · Resolution date: December 31, 2027
Entry type: Directional Forecast
The Prediction
Yuan internationalization will remain primarily performance over practice through 2027. A credibly scheduled capital account opening will not occur. The renminbi will not achieve genuine reserve currency demand outside sanctioned-economy settlement.
Resolution Criteria
Measure: The renminbi’s share in SWIFT’s international-payments measure (excluding intra-eurozone payments), plus the status of capital account controls.
DISCONFIRMED if: capital account opened on a credible published schedule; RMB achieves genuine reserve currency demand outside sanctioned-economy settlement; SWIFT-tracked RMB share rises sustainably above 5 percent with clear upward trajectory.
CONFIRMED if: capital account remains restricted; RMB share remains in the 2.7–3.5 percent range without a clear upward trend through December 2027.
Confidence Level
75–80 percent probability of non-occurrence. Confidence estimate derived from five-channel framework convergence, not a calculated probability.
Current Observable Status
RMB share of SWIFT-tracked global payments at approximately 3.10 percent as of mid-2026. Capital account remains restricted. No credible capital account opening schedule published. Direction of travel consistent with prediction.
SWIFT international measure: 3.26% (September 2026 edition); 3.10% (June 2026).
Status: PENDING
↑ Back to summary
Prediction 5
Communiqué Implementation: Trade Enforcement
Date made: October 4, 2026 (source published; baseline as of September 28, 2026) · Resolution date: December 23, 2026
Entry type: Directional Forecast
The Prediction
The September 24 joint statement contained no origin verification language, no bilateral customs data-sharing provisions, and no enforcement mechanisms targeting transshipping routes. In the absence of those mechanisms, the 90-day window will not produce operationalized enforcement. The absence reflected no commitment, not a deferred one.
Resolution Criteria
CONFIRMED (no operationalization) if: CBP issues no updated certificate-of-origin guidance referencing Vietnam, Malaysia, or Mexico as transshipping intermediaries in the Federal Register; Commerce BIS adds no entities specifically identified as origin-laundering nodes (as distinct from end users of controlled technology); no joint US-China customs statement on data sharing or coordinated enforcement is issued.
DISCONFIRMED if: any one of the three indicators above is present and attributable to the September 24 summit — CBP Federal Register guidance, BIS origin-laundering entity designations, or a joint customs statement operational in scope.
Confidence Level
75–80 percent probability of CONFIRMED (no operationalization).
Status: PENDING
↑ Back to summary
Prediction 6
Communiqué Implementation: AI Governance
Date made: October 4, 2026 (source published; baseline as of September 28, 2026) · Resolution date: November 23, 2026
Entry type: Directional Forecast
The Prediction
Both sides agreed to establish a bilateral AI dialogue. Convening a working group is logistically fast when political will exists. If the joint working group has not held a first formal meeting by November 23, the AI governance commitments are in the same category as the 2015 Obama-Xi cyber agreement: announced publicly, never operationalized.
Resolution Criteria
CONFIRMED (commitments not operationalized) if: the joint AI working group has not held a first formal meeting with both delegations present and a public agenda on record; no incident-reporting mechanism with a named notification timeline has been published; no US federal agency (NIST, NSF, CAISI, OSTP) has issued guidance or rulemaking citing the September 24 summit as a basis for action.
DISCONFIRMED if: the working group convenes formally before November 23 with both delegations present and a public agenda; OR a government-to-government incident-reporting mechanism with operational timelines is published; OR a federal agency cites the summit in binding guidance.
Status: PENDING
↑ Back to summary
Monitoring Framework 7
Communiqué Implementation: South China Sea
Date made: October 4, 2026 (source published; baseline as of September 28, 2026) · Observation window closes: December 23, 2026
Entry type: Monitoring Framework
The Framework
The South China Sea was not addressed in the September 24 joint statement. Silence in a communiqué on an active bilateral issue can mean a diplomatic trade-off, a back-channel de-escalation agreement, or no agreement. Behavioral evidence in the 90-day window will distinguish the last two.
Indicators
Consistent with back-channel de-escalation: Chinese Coast Guard vessel presence at Second Thomas Shoal, Scarborough Shoal, and the Paracels decreases 15% or more versus the 90-day pre-summit baseline (AMTI data); no hardline PLA Southern Theater Command appointments; no continued reporting of aggressive vessel encounters from US-Philippines or US-Vietnam channels.
Consistent with no agreement: operational tempo flat or increased; hardline theater appointments; continued incident reporting from US-Philippines or US-Vietnam channels.
Note: This framework is subject to confounds — domestic Chinese political cycles, US positioning, third-party incidents. The December report will flag these explicitly rather than forcing a clean read the data does not support.
Status: MONITORING
↑ Back to summary
Conditional Diagnostic 8
Communiqué Implementation: G20 Imbalance Language
Date made: October 4, 2026 (source published; baseline as of September 28, 2026) · Resolution date: December 14–15, 2026
Entry type: Conditional Diagnostic
The Signal
At Asheville, China declined to sign G20 Finance Ministers' language acknowledging large current account surpluses as a structural risk to global stability. The Miami Leaders' Summit communiqué is public, binary, and attributed. Whether China signs equivalent language at the Leaders' level that it refused at the Finance Ministers' level is the most informative single signal available in the December window.
Signal Criteria
SIGNAL ABSENT (structural position unchanged): The Miami communiqué omits surplus-risk language entirely to preserve consensus, or China declines to sign language the other 19 members accept.
SIGNAL PRESENT (structural movement): The Miami communiqué contains language acknowledging surplus risks and China is among the signatories.
Note on the $30 billion figure
A reported $30 billion figure is associated with the tariff arrangement from the September 2026 summit, not with the Asheville Finance Ministers' session. The two sides characterized it differently: Chinese accounts presented it as a tariff reduction, while the USTR language was weaker, referring only to recommended categories for possible future treatment. That discrepancy is tracked in the Communiqué piece and is separate from this entry. The Miami signal test asks only whether China accepts surplus-risk language in a public communiqué — it does not depend on how the $30 billion figure is characterized.
Status: PENDING
↑ Back to summary