MacroVision v196: chapter-support diagnostics

4 November 2026. Descriptive diagnostics on the existing v98/v100 runs used by step 101. No model, input, rule or threshold changes; no new estimation. Purpose: three numbers the results chapter needs.

1. Size of the gap to the matched control (42 paired cases)

Percent difference in terminal real nonhousing consumption, actual vs matched control. Median over the 7 financing variants per case (the spread across variants is zero in these cases, confirming the v101 note that credit does not operate in them), then distribution over the 42 cases.

The 42 cases are not independent draws: they share price, tax and behavior rules. Controls remove displacement and productivity but keep policy and housing schedules.

2. Sensitivity to the 90% floor

Cases (of 202 completed in all variants) in which both displaced cohorts stay at or above the floor in every year and variant: 80% → 95, 85% → 87, 90% → 75 (the v101 figure), 95% → 51. The conditional conclusion does not depend on the 90% choice; the count does.

3. Why the strongest productivity setting shows 0 of 24

It is mainly a completion-selection effect, not evidence that productivity harms displaced households.

At the highest productivity gain, every full-capture case stops (corporate liquidity, real capital or equity-redemption capacity exhausted), so the 24 completed cases are all half-capture cases, the setting with the lowest preservation rate. At the lowest gain the reverse holds: half-capture cases stop on government cash financing, so completers are all full-capture. The productivity rows of step 101 therefore compare different capture mixes. Within half capture, preservation is 10/48 at gain 0.5 and 0/24 at gain 1.0, yet the median minimum consumption index of the displaced cohorts is higher at gain 1.0 (77.0 and 63.2) than at gain 0.5 (61.1 and 45.4). A residual productivity pattern within half capture rests on 24 cases and is not established.

Price pass-through is different. Within each capture share, full pass-through still has the lowest joint preservation: half capture 8/24, 2/24, 0/24 and full capture 22/40, 24/42, 19/48 at pass-through 0, 0.5 and 1 (55%, 57%, 40% under full capture, so not strictly monotone). That pattern is not explained by completion mix.

4. Pass-through channel (64 matched pairs, year 10, no-credit variant)

Pairs differ only in pass-through (0 vs 1) and complete in all variants. With full pass-through, real government revenue barely moves (median −1.2%, IQR −3.0% to +1.2%): the cost saving leaves the taxable profit base and reaches consumers through prices. But the residual left for benefits after existing real spending and government interest falls by a median 12.6% (IQR −14.3% to −6.1%), because interest on the existing nominal debt does not fall with prices and existing spending takes first claim. Under the budget-limited benefit rule, a small real revenue loss becomes a large cut in what can be paid. Real benefit spending itself falls less (median −3.2%, IQR −11.7% to +3.3%) because the rule does not bind in every case. This identifies the direction of the channel, not a full decomposition of displaced-household losses; nominal private debt is a further candidate channel not measured here.

Reproduce

```bash python scripts/corporate_credit_v98.py python scripts/corporate_workout_v100.py python scripts/thesis_chapter_support_v196.py python -m unittest discover -s scripts -p test_thesis_chapter_support_v196.py -v

Regenerating v98/v100 reproduces every v101 statistic exactly; only recorded source-file hashes differ. Output: data/processed/thesis_chapter_support_v196.json`. No calibration or causal approval.