Model how shifting stakeholder stances affects the feasibility of each reform package. Scores combine political support (70%) and fiscal readiness (30%) — a package can have strong coalition backing but still stall if it is massively underfunded. Feasibility threshold: 75 / 100.
This is a heuristic, not a forecast. The stance weights, the 70/30 split and the threshold are the maintainer's judgement, not estimated parameters; the influence scores are curated. Use the output to compare scenarios against each other, not as a prediction of what will pass. See Methodology.
The political axis here is not the idea page's coalition score. It reads each actor's general engagement posture across every actor attached to the package — a dozen or more per package, never one or two — so the three-actor floor that withholds the idea-level score does not apply. Where a package has no actors attached at all the political component falls back to a neutral 50, which the combined score then carries at 70% weight.
Preset Scenarios
Remove physical bottlenecks that constrain all economic activity
Remove friction from SA's best short-term jobs engine
Invest now because the lags are a decade long
Align incentives with comparative advantage and compete globally
None of the above works without a capable state
Minimum stakeholder shifts (greedy, highest-influence first) needed to push the combined score above the 75-point threshold for packages currently below it. Note: fiscal readiness is fixed — political shifts alone may not be sufficient if underfunding is severe.
Shift these 5 stakeholders to Constructive Critic:
Shift these 6 stakeholders to Constructive Critic:
Shift these 3 stakeholders to Constructive Critic:
Shift these 0 stakeholder to Constructive Critic:
1
packages feasible
69
avg combined score
0
stakeholders shifted