Potential applications of multi-actor LLM simulation beyond the current Iran-Israel conflict scenario. The core engine is domain-agnostic; these use cases require only new scenario YAML, actor clusters, and optional graph configs.
The primary use case. Fast-moving crises where affected populations need actionable predictions.
| Scenario | Actor Complexity | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Iran-Israel war (active) | 25+ actors | Current focus. Internal dynamics critical. |
| South China Sea escalation | 15-20 actors | US, China, Taiwan, Philippines, Japan, ASEAN |
| Ukraine front-line evolution | 15+ actors | Military + diplomatic + domestic politics |
| Korean Peninsula crisis | 10-15 actors | DPRK, ROK, US, China, Japan |
| India-Pakistan escalation | 10-15 actors | Nuclear dimension, Kashmir trigger |
| Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Sudan) | 15+ actors | Multi-ethnic, multi-state, humanitarian |
Testing policy options before implementation. A government analyst could define their country's decision-maker as a controllable actor and test different policy choices against the responses of other actors.
| Scenario | Use | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Sanctions impact modelling | Test sanctions regimes against target-state responses | Economic + political actors |
| Alliance stress-testing | Model how alliance commitments hold under pressure | NATO Article 5 scenarios |
| Treaty negotiation simulation | Pre-negotiate by modelling counterpart responses | Trade, arms control, climate |
| Diplomatic recognition scenarios | Model cascading effects of recognition decisions | Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo |
"Pre-mortems" for geopolitical risks. Run the simulation with nature
set high and the shock taxonomy configured for maximum disruption.
| Scenario | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Strait of Hormuz closure | Energy security planning for import-dependent states |
| Suez Canal blockage (military) | Global supply chain stress test |
| Simultaneous multi-front war | Force planning and readiness assessment |
| Nuclear escalation ladder | At what point do actors cross the nuclear threshold? |
| Cyber-physical attack on infrastructure | How do states respond to ambiguous attacks? |
The actor-based approach applies to any multi-stakeholder decision environment. Domestic policy involves actors with competing interests, constraints, and red lines — exactly what the simulation models.
| Scenario | Actors | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Noise pollution regulation | Municipal council, residents, businesses, enforcement, developers, nightlife industry | Classic NIMBY multi-stakeholder |
| Housing policy reform | Government, developers, NIMBYs, renters, banks, construction unions | Red lines and coalition dynamics |
| Public transit planning | City planners, commuters, car lobby, environmental groups, budget office | Trade-offs and competing priorities |
| Healthcare system reform | Government, hospitals, insurers, doctors' unions, patients, pharma | Institutional constraints |
| Education curriculum reform | Ministry, teachers' unions, parents, religious groups, employers | Cultural red lines |
| Climate adaptation planning | City, residents, industry, environmental groups, insurers, federal gov | Long-term vs. short-term tension |
Model market participants as actors with strategies, constraints, and information asymmetry.
| Scenario | Actors | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Trade war escalation | Governments, industries, supply chains, consumers, WTO | Tariff/retaliation cycles |
| Central bank policy coordination | Fed, ECB, BoJ, BoE, emerging market CBs, markets | Interest rate game theory |
| Sovereign debt crisis contagion | Debtor state, creditor nations, IMF, markets, neighbours | Cascading default modelling |
| Energy transition dynamics | Oil producers, renewables, governments, utilities, consumers | Stranded asset risk |
| Tech regulation | Governments, tech platforms, users, advertisers, civil society | Regulatory arbitrage |
| Sanctions impact wargaming | Target state, sanctioning coalition, neutral states, markets, smuggling networks | Each model as a national economic perspective |
Structured prediction through adversarial multi-model analysis.
| Scenario | Actors/Lenses | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Election outcome forecasting | Polling analyst, economic lens, sentiment analyst, historical pattern analyst | Multipolar analytical lenses, not role-play |
| Ceasefire durability scoring | Each stakeholder assesses agreement survivability from their position | Post-agreement stress-testing |
| Treaty compliance monitoring | Compliance advocate, violation hunter, adjudicator | Adversarial analysis structure |
| Disinformation campaign attribution | Linguistics analyst, network topology, timing analyst, narrative analyst | Multi-domain forensic analysis |
| Climate-security nexus forecasting | Climate modeller, livelihood analyst, political analyst, conflict researcher | Causal chain modelling |
| Generational leadership transition | Successor factions, old guard, military, external patrons | Succession dynamics in opaque regimes |
Modelling formal international bodies with well-defined rules, voting records, and quantifiable preferences. These are particularly amenable to simulation because their procedures are documented and their actors' historical positions are on record.
| Body | Members | Why Simulable |
|---|---|---|
| UN Security Council | 15 (5 veto) | Complete voting records, veto mechanics, narrow mandate |
| OPEC+ | ~23 | Quantified production quotas, transparent economic incentives |
| European Council | 27 | QMV mathematics, population-weighted votes, VoteWatch data |
| FOMC | 12 voting | Published transcripts, dot plots, estimable reaction functions |
| IAEA Board | 35 | Nuclear mandate, non-proliferation voting patterns |
| IMF Executive Board | 24 | Weighted voting, lending decision frameworks |
| FATF Plenary | 39 | Defined scoring criteria, grey/black list decisions |
| Body | Members | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Arctic Council | 8 | Consensus, geographic focus, climate + sovereignty |
| Nuclear Suppliers Group | 48 | Consensus, India membership blocking dynamics |
| OPCW Executive Council | 41 | Compliance disputes, Syria precedent |
| ICJ | 15 judges | Published voting records and opinions |
| IPCC Approval Plenaries | 195 | SPM line-by-line negotiation |
Simulate coordination failures and resource allocation in crisis response.
| Scenario | Actors | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Refugee flow prediction | Origin, transit, destination countries, UNHCR, smugglers | Coordination failure modelling |
| Pandemic response coordination | WHO, national governments, pharma, public, media | Information asymmetry critical |
| Natural disaster response | National/local government, military, NGOs, affected population, donors | Resource allocation |
| Maritime chokepoint disruption | Shipping, insurers, navies, port states, commodity traders | Cascading supply chain effects |
Simulate constitutional crises and institutional resilience. Each branch of government, the military, civil society, and the judiciary operate as actors with their own red lines and institutional incentives.
| Scenario | Actors | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional crisis red-teaming | Executive, legislature, judiciary, military, civil society | Democratic backsliding scenarios |
| Post-conflict power-sharing design | Ethnic/religious factions, military, external guarantors | Iteratively negotiate and stress-test provisions |
| Electoral dispute escalation | Incumbent, challenger, courts, military, street, international observers | Contested election dynamics |
Not role-play but analytical framework simulation. Each "actor" is an analytical perspective applied to the same problem. Draws from the Panel-Of-Claude two-round deliberation pattern.
| Framework Set | Lenses | Use |
|---|---|---|
| IR theory | Realist, liberal institutionalist, constructivist, Marxist, postcolonial | Foreign policy analysis |
| Economic schools | Keynesian, monetarist, Austrian, MMT, development economics | Fiscal/monetary policy |
| Ethical frameworks | Utilitarian, deontological, virtue ethics, care ethics | Bioethics, AI ethics, policy ethics |
| Security studies | Traditional, human security, critical security, feminist security | Threat assessment |
- Voting simulation: Define a resolution and have actors vote with structured justification. Applicable to any scenario ending in a formal decision (treaty, sanctions vote, policy adoption).
- Bilateral impact analysis: Post-simulation assessment of how the outcome affected pairwise relationships.
- Chamber structure: Plenary sessions + working groups + back-channels. Applicable to any negotiation scenario.
- Facilitator agent: Neutral moderator that manages speaking order and enforces procedural rules. Useful for diplomatic simulations.
- Sub-faction decomposition: The granular actor modelling approach (150+ actors for the Middle East) sets the standard for fidelity.
- Two-round deliberation: Independent analysis → cross-pollination. Applicable to policy analysis scenarios where you want multiple analytical frameworks rather than role-playing.
- Tension mapping: Instead of declaring winners, map where genuine value conflicts exist. Better output for policy analysis than narrative adjudication.
- Motion decomposition: Break complex problems into problem statements, causal claims, and implicit questions before simulation.
- Agent clustering: Organise large actor sets into thematic clusters. Already implemented via actor cluster YAML.
- Identity generation: Generate credible fictional identities for actors when simulating generic roles (e.g., "a municipal council member" rather than a named individual).
- Broadcast mode: Not all simulations need interactive debate. Some scenarios benefit from each actor independently assessing the situation, with synthesis happening post-hoc.
- Iran-Israel full actor cluster (done)
- Scenario subgraph config system (done — config format)
- Information asymmetry implementation in core engine
- Escalation ladder structured output
- Ensemble forecasting (multi-run aggregation)
- Adaptive timestep implementation
- Exogenous shock injection system
- Second conflict scenario (South China Sea or Ukraine)
- Domestic policy scenario template
- Panel-Of-Claude tension mapping mode
- AI-Agent-UN voting mode
- PITME facilitator/chamber mode
- Public API for simulation results
- Calibration feedback loop from accuracy grading