IESET.
Hypotheses·regulatory·banking_crisis_brazil_1999_real_devaluation

Brazil's January 1999 abandonment of the crawling peg and devaluation of the real by >= 35% against USD, combined with the IMF programme negotiated in late 1998 and the legacy of the PROER bank-restructuring programme of 1995-1997, constitutes a canonical EM exchange-rate-anchor-failure case in which banking-system stress was managed without a Laeven-Valencia-coded systemic banking crisis.

The hypothesis is that Brazil 1998-1999 meets the canonical multi-metric currency-crisis signature on at least 3 of 4 metrics, but does not satisfy the systemic-banking-crisis threshold.

SUPPORTEDengine/runs/banking_crisis_brazil_1999_real_devaluation

SUPPORTED

confidence cueThis is a clear pass for the claim as written. It still applies only to this sample, period, and method.

policy briefClear support

In ordinary language

In plain terms, this asks whether the policy story survives a real-world data check from 1995 to 2003.

plain answer

The data clearly moved in the predicted direction. SUPPORTED

why it matters

This matters because regulatory claims should change belief only when they survive a pre-declared empirical test.

how the test works

It compares 1 country or place units from 1995 to 2003, using a multi metric checklist design.

what was measured
What we checked
  • Real income
  • Nominal xr usd
what this does not prove

A single test is not the whole truth. It narrows the claim under a specific sample, time period, and method. Strong policy conclusions need the pattern to survive nearby tests, alternative data, and serious objections.

verification

4 input datasets, 0 unresolved missing series, provenance status: reproducible hash verified.

Results

engine/runs/banking_crisis_brazil_1999_real_devaluation
1007550250199519992003BRA
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show real_gdp across 1 sampled countries over 1995–2003.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for banking_crisis_brazil_1999_real_devaluation. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/banking_crisis_brazil_1999_real_devaluation/chart_data.json.

Pre-registration

pre-registered
first-spec commit 098ce96 · 2026-04-30T12:57:33Z
run generated · 2026-05-15T20:30:26Z

Brazil's January 1999 abandonment of the crawling peg and devaluation of the real by >= 35% against USD, combined with the IMF programme negotiated in late 1998 and the legacy of the PROER bank-restructuring programme of 1995-1997, constitutes a canonical EM exchange-rate-anchor-failure case in which banking-system stress was managed without a Laeven-Valencia-coded systemic banking crisis. The hypothesis is that Brazil 1998-1999 meets the canonical multi-metric currency-crisis signature on at least 3 of 4 metrics, but does not satisfy the systemic-banking-crisis threshold.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

Evaluate every canonical_metrics row against its pre-registered source, window, and threshold. The hypothesis is SUPPORTED if at least 3 of 4 metrics are MET. It is REFUTED if even counting all pending metrics as favorable cannot reach 3 MET metrics and the confirmed failures cross the pre-registered refutation guardrail. Otherwise the verdict is INCONCLUSIVE until pending data or pending evaluation metrics are resolved.

formal test & threshold
test:      multi_metric_checklist_canonical_banking_crisis
threshold: MET >= 3 of 4; REFUTE when MET + PENDING_DATA + PENDING_EVAL < 3; refutation guardrail=1

Method

Template
multi_metric_checklist
Clustering
none
Sample
1 countries · 1995 – 2003
Evidence type
canonical_case_multi_metric

Canonical-case checklist evaluator reads canonical_metrics and multi_metric_falsification; no regression model is estimated. Each metric is scored against its pre-registered source, window, and threshold before applying the count rule below.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
real_gdp
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.MKTP.KDtier 2
yoy
nominal_xr_usd
outcome
world_bank_wdi:PA.NUS.FCRFtier 2
peak_to_trough

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — banking_crisis_brazil_1999_real_devaluation

Verdict: supported

Reason: 3 of 4 metrics met threshold (support threshold 3)

Pre-registered rule: SUPPORT if >= 3 of 4 metrics met; REFUTE if <= 1 met (impossible to hit support).

Counts: 3 MET · 0 NOT_MET · 1 PENDING_DATA · 0 PENDING_EVAL

Primary country: BRA

Metric-by-metric

| # | Metric | Status | Observed | Threshold | Notes | |---|---|:---:|---:|---|---| | 1 | real_depreciation_1999 | MET | 290 (1998) [max_in_window_fallback] | >= 35% depreciation | | | 2 | imf_programme_1998 | PENDING_DATA | | yes/no — yes counts as breach | No usable vintage for: imf:SBA_BRA_1998 | | 3 | real_gdp_growth_disturbance | MET | 38.4 (1999) [pct_increase_from_baseline] | >= 2 pp slowdown vs 1995-1997 average | | | 4 | cpi_inflation_pickup | MET | 120 (2000) [pct_increase_from_baseline] | >= 5 pp YoY rise from 1998 to 2000 | |

Claim

Brazil's January 1999 abandonment of the crawling peg and devaluation of the real by >= 35% against USD, combined with the IMF programme negotiated in late 1998 and the legacy of the PROER bank-restructuring programme of 1995-1997, constitutes a canonical EM exchange-rate-anchor-failure case in which banking-system stress was managed without a Laeven-Valencia-coded systemic banking crisis. The hypothesis is that Brazil 1998-1999 meets the canonical multi-metric currency-crisis signature on at least 3 of 4 metrics, but does not satisfy the systemic-banking-crisis threshold.

Interpretation

The canonical-case pattern match is satisfied: 3 of 4 pre-registered metrics meet their thresholds, above the support threshold of 3. Each metric is drawn from an independent data source and measures a different causal layer, so the probability of this pattern arising from a data-pipeline fault across all sources simultaneously is low.

Steelman live concerns

See hypotheses/steelman/banking_crisis_brazil_1999_real_devaluation.md for the strongest opposing arguments. Canonical-case multi-metric evidence is a pattern match, not a causal identification — the result card should be read as 'outcome trajectory matches the predicted pattern to degree X' rather than 'policy P caused the outcome'.

Provenance

Vintages pinned in manifest.yaml. Full per-metric diagnostics in diagnostics.json. Machine-readable results in metric_results.parquet.

Strongest opposing argument

Every hypothesis ships with its charitable opposing argument. The framework earns credibility by handling objections at their strongest, not weakest.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.