01 · CM-0
Does productive electricity surplus actually exist, or is it political marketing?
The national waterfall back-tested against 25 years of data settles the question. NZ returns Band A every year 2000–2024.
The political cost of getting it wrong — for incumbents, oppositions, and coalition partners — is rising. Inari Protocol provides the analytical scaffolding that lets policy decisions survive cross-examination by parliament, press, and partisan opposition.
Each decision is grounded in a specific core or cluster. Each has been calibrated at least once. Each is defensible against hostile review.
The national waterfall back-tested against 25 years of data settles the question. NZ returns Band A every year 2000–2024.
Stage TEA across competing chains identifies where energy advantage concentrates, and which conversions produce qualification advantage downstream.
Scenario assumptions are stress-tested against historical calibration. Internal inconsistencies are surfaced in the methodology appendix, not buried.
The Sovereign Necessities cluster integrates security, supply chain, and economic returns into a single bankability frame.
State and regional surplus heterogeneity maps to industrial siting strategy. Pilbara, SA, and Queensland present distinct productive-surplus profiles in the AU calibration.
Sensitivity analysis on the largest assumptions identifies high-leverage interventions. Food processing emerged as the #1 sectoral sensitivity in the NZ wealth/TWh decomposition.
The NZ assessment is the worked example. Back-tested against MBIE data from 2000 to 2024, the national waterfall returns Band A every year. EDGS Reference (62 TWh by 2050) and Growth (72 TWh) trajectories remain Band A. Productive abundance requires roughly 90 TWh by 2035.
Three principles, plainly stated.
The firm works with parties of any persuasion. Methodology is published; conclusions remain the client's. The framework provides the analytical basis for whatever position a party chooses — it does not write the position.
Unless and until the client chooses to publish. Methodology is always disclosable; conclusions and recommendations remain the client's. The framework is auditable; the strategic application of it is not.
Every assumption documented. Every output reproducible. The framework can survive a hostile peer review or a parliamentary inquiry. That is the point.
Three engagement types most common for government and political clients.
| Engagement type | Duration | Price band |
|---|---|---|
| National or regional surplus assessment (P1) | 8–16 weeks | $150K – $800K |
| Policy platform analytical support (lightweight P1) | 4–8 weeks | $30K – $150K |
| Standing instance for in-house use (P5) | 12–24 wks build + ongoing | $200K – $1M build + $50K – $150K / yr |
One hour. We will understand the decision in front of you and propose the right product — or tell you honestly if the framework is not yet a fit.
Engagements with parties out of office run on the same terms as engagements with parties in office.