Pre-registration
Brazil's PROER (Programme to Stimulate the Restructuring and Strengthening of the National Financial System) of 1995-1997 — interventions in Banco Nacional, Banco Económico, Banco Bamerindus, central-bank liquidity facilities, and pre-emptive bank cleanup — is a canonical case of pre-emptive bank-balance-sheet cleanup in the wake of macro stabilisation (Plano Real 1994). The hypothesis is that PROER 1995-1997 meets a multi-metric checklist on at least 3 of 4 metrics, with the defining feature being preventive resolution prior to a Laeven-Valencia-coded systemic event.
Falsification criterion — what would disprove this
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 · 1992 – 2000
- 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
| Variable | Source | Transform |
|---|---|---|
real_gdp_growth outcome | world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZGtier 2 | annual_yoy |
bank_credit_to_gdp outcome | world_bank_wdi:FS.AST.PRVT.GD.ZStier 2 | level |
● ready · ● pending · ● reconstruct-needed
Detailed result card
Result card — banking_crisis_brazil_proer_1995_1997
Verdict: supported
Reason: 4 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: 4 MET · 0 NOT_MET · 0 PENDING_DATA · 0 PENDING_EVAL
Primary country: BRA
Metric-by-metric
| # | Metric | Status | Observed | Threshold | Notes |
|---|---|:---:|---:|---|---|
| 1 | proer_facility_creation_1995 | MET | 1 (1995) [yes_no_indicator_max] | yes/no — yes counts as breach | yes/no event evaluated from binary event indicator |
| 2 | bank_interventions_1995_1997 | MET | 3 (1997) [event_count_indicator_max] | all three interventions executed by 1997 | all-three event threshold evaluated from coded count |
| 3 | laeven_valencia_systemic_banking_crisis | MET | 1 (1995) [coded_yes_indicator_max] | coded yes (recognising PROER episode counts as systemic in LV) | coded YES evaluated from binary event indicator |
| 4 | real_gdp_growth_undisturbed | MET | 2.21 (1997) [annual_growth_rate_value] | annual growth >= 2% in each year (negative-control: PROER pre-empted macro spillover) | annual growth values: 1995=4.224, 1996=2.209, 1997=3.395; threshold each >=2 |
Claim
Brazil's PROER (Programme to Stimulate the Restructuring and Strengthening of the National Financial System) of 1995-1997 — interventions in Banco Nacional, Banco Económico, Banco Bamerindus, central-bank liquidity facilities, and pre-emptive bank cleanup — is a canonical case of pre-emptive bank-balance-sheet cleanup in the wake of macro stabilisation (Plano Real 1994). The hypothesis is that PROER 1995-1997 meets a multi-metric checklist on at least 3 of 4 metrics, with the defining feature being preventive resolution prior to a Laeven-Valencia-coded systemic event.
Interpretation
The canonical-case pattern match is satisfied: 4 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_proer_1995_1997.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.