IESET.
Hypotheses·regulatory·banking_crisis_mexico_tequila_1994_canonical

Mexico's December-1994 Tequila Crisis — peso devaluation against the USD by >= 50%, IMF / US Treasury rescue package, real-GDP contraction of >= 6% in 1995, and a Laeven-Valencia-coded systemic banking crisis 1994-1996 — is the canonical EM-currency-and-banking-twin-crisis case of the early 1990s.

The hypothesis is that Mexico 1994-1996 meets the canonical multi-metric checklist on at least 4 of 5 metrics.

REFUTEDengine/runs/banking_crisis_mexico_tequila_1994_canonical

REFUTED

confidence cueThis test cuts against the claim as written or misses its pre-declared threshold.

policy briefClear refutation

In ordinary language

In plain terms, this asks whether the policy story survives a real-world data check from 1990 to 2000.

plain answer

The data did not support the prediction. REFUTED

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 1990 to 2000, 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_mexico_tequila_1994_canonical
1007550250199019952000MEX
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show real_gdp across 1 sampled countries over 1990–2000.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for banking_crisis_mexico_tequila_1994_canonical. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/banking_crisis_mexico_tequila_1994_canonical/chart_data.json.

Who has skin in the game — schools predicting on this

1 school list this hypothesis as a test of their position. The chips below are school-level scoreboard outcomes, not a second hypothesis verdict.

hypothesis verdict vs scoreboard outcome

The banner verdict judges this hypothesis as written. The scoreboard asks whether each school's polarity-corrected prediction was right. Raw status is not a school win: SUPPORTED supports schools that needed SUPPORTED, but refutes schools that needed REFUTED.

Democratic Socialism (Bernsteinian revisionism + modern)wins if MIXEDpartial/no-call

Pre-registration

registration ordering unverified
first-spec commit 4c8ce8e · 2026-07-18T22:11:21Z
run generated · 2026-05-01T08:00:28Z
Run timestamp predates this path's first git-add commit (rebase, rename, or pre-git local run). Spec hash is still the path's first-add commit — not repository HEAD — but ordering is not a clean pre-registration proof.

Mexico's December-1994 Tequila Crisis — peso devaluation against the USD by >= 50%, IMF / US Treasury rescue package, real-GDP contraction of >= 6% in 1995, and a Laeven-Valencia-coded systemic banking crisis 1994-1996 — is the canonical EM-currency-and-banking-twin-crisis case of the early 1990s. The hypothesis is that Mexico 1994-1996 meets the canonical multi-metric checklist on at least 4 of 5 metrics.

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 4 of 5 metrics are MET. It is REFUTED if even counting all pending metrics as favorable cannot reach 4 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 >= 4 of 5; REFUTE when MET + PENDING_DATA + PENDING_EVAL < 4; refutation guardrail=1

Method

Template
multi_metric_checklist
Clustering
none
Sample
1 countries · 1990 – 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

VariableSourceTransform
real_gdp
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.MKTP.KDtier 2
peak_to_trough
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_mexico_tequila_1994_canonical

Verdict: refuted

Reason: 2 metrics failed and 2 pending; cannot reach 4

Pre-registered rule: SUPPORT if >= 4 of 5 metrics met; REFUTE if <= 1 met (impossible to hit support).

Counts: 1 MET · 2 NOT_MET · 2 PENDING_DATA · 0 PENDING_EVAL

Primary country: MEX

Metric-by-metric

| # | Metric | Status | Observed | Threshold | Notes | |---|---|:---:|---:|---|---| | 1 | peso_depreciation_1994_1995 | MET | 292 (1994) [max_in_window_fallback] | >= 50% depreciation | | | 2 | real_gdp_decline_1995 | NOT_MET | 5.91 (1995) [peak_to_trough_pct_decline] | >= 6% decline | | | 3 | imf_us_treasury_programme | PENDING_DATA | | yes/no — yes counts as breach | No usable vintage for: imf:SBA_MEX_1995 | | 4 | systemic_banking_crisis_coded | PENDING_DATA | | coded yes | No usable vintage for: owid:systemic-banking-crises | | 5 | current_account_reversal | NOT_MET | -0.415 (1995) [max_in_window_fallback] | >= 5 pp of GDP swing 1994-1996 | |

Claim

Mexico's December-1994 Tequila Crisis — peso devaluation against the USD by >= 50%, IMF / US Treasury rescue package, real-GDP contraction of >= 6% in 1995, and a Laeven-Valencia-coded systemic banking crisis 1994-1996 — is the canonical EM-currency-and-banking-twin-crisis case of the early 1990s. The hypothesis is that Mexico 1994-1996 meets the canonical multi-metric checklist on at least 4 of 5 metrics.

Interpretation

The canonical-case pattern match is not satisfied: only 1 of 5 metrics met their thresholds, below the support threshold of 4. Note that for canonical-case hypotheses, a refutation can indicate either that the hypothesis is genuinely weak, that the metric set is mis-calibrated (too strict), or that the data substrate has systematic gaps. Review the PENDING_DATA / PENDING_EVAL metrics before accepting the refutation.

Steelman live concerns

See hypotheses/steelman/banking_crisis_mexico_tequila_1994_canonical.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.