Inside a sim
What a rehearsal produces.
Five output stages. Each one is independently inspectable, independently auditable, independently exportable. No black box. No unfootnoted claim.
The five output stages
-
01 Seeds
The dossier you uploaded, parsed and indexed into a typeset document: every entity extracted, every claim referenceable. The chain back to your source material starts here. Footnote chips throughout the rest of the report resolve back to this surface.
-
02 Graph
The world built from your sources. Stakeholders, organisations, jurisdictions, prior comparables, narrative anchors, connected. You can inspect the graph during build and reach any node from a footnote in the final report.
-
03 Personas
The simulated stakeholder field. Analysts, regulators, institutional holders, activists, press, employees: drawn from the graph, balanced across cohorts, asked to react in their own voice. Every persona is a card you can open. Every card carries the source material it was generated from.
-
04 Simulation
Timed rounds of interaction across the simulated platforms: analyst desks, financial press, retail forums, regulator-side comms. Posts, replies, narrative shifts, minority dissents, all on the record. Each post is attributable to a persona; each persona is attributable to a graph node; each graph node is attributable to a document in your dossier.
-
05 Report
Executive summary, dominant narratives, inflection points, minority views, evidence trail, Diagnostics. Three exports from the same diagnosed run: markdown for the analyst, PDF for the archive, board-ready deck for Tuesday's committee. Every claim footnoted to a specific persona, post, or graph node.
Outputs on the record
Sample outputs from rehearsals we've run.
All drawn from one canonical run of the Alphabet Q4 2024 capex framing rehearsal. Tiles cycle every six seconds; hover or focus to pause. Reduced-motion shows the full set at once.
01 / Decision matrix
Which framing best protects shareholder value?
| Option | 72-h cap delta | Confidence | Dominant risk |
| Status quo |
−$10B to +$10B |
LOW |
Read as no AI strategy |
| Aggressive |
−$100B to −$150B |
MED |
“CapEx arms race”; tail goes deeper |
| ★ Backlog-anchored |
−$20B to $0B |
HIGH |
Anchored to revenue |
| Staged |
−$15B to $0B |
MED |
Read as lack of conviction |
runs/exp-recover-sprint-g/run-1 · announcement-sim · 4 framings ranked
02 / Pre-event verdict / post-event truth
When the world picked the rejected option.
Glasshouse said, 3 Feb 2025
Pick Backlog-anchored. Avoid Aggressive.
Aggressive framing forecast at −$100B to −$150B in 72 h, MED confidence, with “CapEx arms race” as the dominant destructive narrative.
The world did, 4–7 Feb 2025
~$215B erased in 90 minutes.
Alphabet shipped the Aggressive equivalent. Stock fell ~9 % after-hours; ~$165B gone by the next session close; $150–$200B in the 72-h window.
narrative match across cohorts · ground truth on file
03 / Pushback phrases
What the room actually said.
“CapEx arms race”
“unproductive vanity spend”
“black hole for cash”
“valuation trap”
“management-driven fever dream”
“infinite burn”
“non-deterministic complexity”
“capacity-constrained, not demand-weak”
“can't tell its own AI story”
verbatim from sell-side, press, and SRE-cohort posts in arm-A run-1 · pinned to round 35–40
04 / Cohort coverage
Breadth of the simulated stakeholder field.
11 / 11
Cohorts grounded
494
Contributions
7
Stance clusters
25
Personas on roster
enforcer · investor · industry · press · labour, every cohort has authored posts in every dimension
05 / Minority view
The dissent the dominant cluster wanted to drown out.
Whether it's Option A or B, this $75B capex commitment is just pouring more fuel onto the non-deterministic complexity fire. Management is chasing a ghost.
[Source: SRE_Ops_Lead, Round 35] · Cynical Critic stance group · cohort: labour
minority_populist cluster · 49 posts · 3 authors · 1 cohort, surfaced before it could be drowned by the dominant narrative
Methodology
Methodology disclosure
Every rehearsal we publish output from is post-cutoff: the seed dossier was constructed from material available before the event being rehearsed, then evaluated internally against a multi-dimensional rubric: narrative coverage, narrative ranking, quote proximity, minority view representation, evidence-grounded footnoting, stakeholder balance. Tiles in this gallery are curated for narrative impact: not gated on a single pass-or-fail metric, and never tuned around any one case. Glasshouse is tuned on aggregate quality across many scenarios; never on a predetermined marketing target. We do not publish a public accuracy ledger.
Now see how engagements work.