Compound Fork — Compute scale × Energy / grid

Each cell = a joint scenario "Both branches fire". Cell intensity = total |Δ| across the 200 highest-conviction tradeable predictions vs their unconditional posterior. Joint probabilities approximated via log-odds combination (assumes conditional independence given the prediction — coarse but bounded). Click a cell to drill into the dominant single-fork view.

Pick two fork families

Rows (Compute scale)Compute scaleEnergy / gridHumanoid deploymentRobotaxiAGIASI$1T+ IPOMars uncrewedAI pauseRecession
Cols (Energy / grid)Compute scaleEnergy / gridHumanoid deploymentRobotaxiAGIASI$1T+ IPOMars uncrewedAI pauseRecession
Compute scale ↓ × Energy / grid
GRID_50GW_2027
prior 40%
GRID_50GW_2029
prior 50%
GRID_50GW_DELAYED
prior 10%
COMPUTE_1GW_2027
prior 60%
121 claims · Σ|Δ| 14.96
126 claims · Σ|Δ| 15.25
124 claims · Σ|Δ| 15.14
COMPUTE_10GW_2028
prior 40%
124 claims · Σ|Δ| 15.45
125 claims · Σ|Δ| 15.61
125 claims · Σ|Δ| 15.64
COMPUTE_100GW_2030
prior 20%
124 claims · Σ|Δ| 16.29
124 claims · Σ|Δ| 16.22
124 claims · Σ|Δ| 16.25
COMPUTE_STARGATE_FAILURE
prior 15%
120 claims · Σ|Δ| 14.82
124 claims · Σ|Δ| 15.09
122 claims · Σ|Δ| 14.99

Method note

Joint conditional probability is approximated via log-odds combination: logit(P(pred|A,B)) ≈ logit(P(pred|A)) + logit(P(pred|B)) − logit(P(pred)). This is the closed-form Bayesian update assuming A and B are conditionally independent given the prediction. It's correct when the two scenarios act on the prediction through different causal paths; it's pessimistic when they overlap. The exact joint requires running the Gibbs sampler with both scenarios clamped, which would be N×M=16 sampling runs (~12 minutes per refresh) instead of N+M=8 — a 2× cost for higher fidelity.