How We Classify
This page explains our methodology and criteria for logging system-damaging escalations. All criteria are open, transparent, and based on observable behavior and outcomes.
What is a "Tantrum"?
A "Tantrum" is a system-damaging escalation that meets at least 2 of the following 3 criteria:
- Deviation from established process: Bypassing institutional checks, guardrails, or precedent without formal procedure
- Disproportional escalation: Reaction is not proportional to the trigger (measurable via impact)
- Measurable harm: Concrete, observable damage on one or more dimensions:
- Economic (trade, markets, contracts)
- Diplomatic (alliances, international relations)
- Institutional (checks & balances, procedures, norms)
- Operational (critical infrastructure, continuity)
We do NOT log normal escalations within accepted procedures, hard but legitimate negotiations, or policy decisions that go through normal channels (even if controversial).
Tantrump Index (0-5)
Level 0: No deviation
Action within normal procedures and precedent
Level 1: Verbal deviation
Public statements that ignore procedures/guardrails (no concrete action)
Level 2: Procedural bypass
Concrete action that bypasses one guardrail, limited impact
Level 3: Multiple guardrails bypassed
Multiple procedures bypassed, measurable institutional damage
Level 4: Systemic escalation
International/broad economic impact, multiple systems damaged
Level 5: Irreversible system damage
Irreversible damage to institutional foundations
Our Methodology
Append-only logic: We never update existing entries. New developments = new entries. Escalation chains link related entries to show how escalations build on each other.
Primary sources only: We only use verified sources (Guardian, AP, official statements). No social media as primary source unless it's an official account.
Transparency: All criteria are public and verifiable. No secret methodology. Corrections are logged as new entries with links to original entries.
Objectivity: We focus on observable behavior, not intent. We measure against constitutional procedures and precedents, not political preference.