> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.gdeltcloud.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Propagation potential > What `propagation_potential` measures, what you can do with it, how it is computed, and what it does not claim. The CONDITIONS that let a shock travel, 0-1. All five sub-factors are OBSERVED present properties of the event as reported — never a forecast of specific follow-on events. In one sentence: average how open the channels are, how tight the coupling, whether a barrier broke, how primed the ground is, and how little damping is already in place — and score 0 if no live channel exists at all. ## What it is for * Asking whether a disruption is likely to travel beyond where it happened, rather than how bad it is where it happened. * Early warning: a high reading with a low `magnitude` is the classic small-event-big-consequence shape. * Filtering out self-contained incidents — a `0` means no live transmission channel was found, which is a strong negative signal. * Reading the `containment` sub-factor as a damper: a high value SUPPRESSES the score, so a falling containment on a live story is itself the signal. ## Filter on it `propagation_potential_min` and `propagation_potential_max` on `GET /api/v2/events`, range `0`–`1`. Published only for the **cameoplus** family — filtering on it excludes every event outside that family. ## Formula $$ \text{propagation\_potential} = \begin{cases} 0 & c \le 0.05 \\[4pt] \dfrac{c + k + b + p + (1 - m)}{5} & c > 0.05 \end{cases} $$ | Symbol | What it is | | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | $c$ | `channel` — the GATE. Do live transmission channels exist at all? At or below 0.05 the whole metric is 0. | | $k$ | `coupling` — the absence of slack: buffers, spare capacity, substitutes, time to respond. | | $b$ | `breach` — did this cross a threshold or degrade a barrier that was holding? | | $p$ | `primed` — is the receiving system already stressed or near a tipping point? | | $m$ | `containment` — dampers ALREADY acting. The one INVERTED factor: it enters as `1 - m`, so a high value lowers the score. | Every sub-factor is clamped to its stated range before it enters the equation, and the result is rounded to **2 decimal places**. Reproducing a served value needs both. ## What the coder scores The coder reads these off the article and records a reason for each. The scaler above turns them into the value — nothing else feeds it. ### `channel` **Gate** — at or below `0.05` the whole metric is `0` regardless of the other sub-factors. GATE (0-1): do LIVE transmission channels exist from this event to other actors or systems? Score the count and breadth of channel TYPES that exist NOW: operational dependency, common exposure, confidence/belief, physical/geographic. 0 = genuinely self-contained. ### `coupling` (0-1) How tight and fast is the connection? Score the ABSENCE of slack: buffers, spare capacity, substitutes, rerouting, time to respond. ### `breach` (0-1) Did this cross a threshold or DEGRADE A BARRIER that was holding? The signal is breach of a previously observed restraint ("first time", "first since", "unprecedented"), not absolute size. ### `primed` (0-1) Is the receiving system already stressed, crowded, or near a tipping point (existing crisis, deadline, election, market open)? ### `containment` **Inverted** — high values SUPPRESS the score; it enters as `(1 − value)`. SUBTRACTIVE (0-1): are credible dampers ALREADY acting in the description? mediator, backstop, failover, circuit-breaker, reserve release, service restored. ## The frameworks it adapts ### [ESRB systemic cyber-risk model](https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/reports/esrb.report202404_advancingmacroprudentialtools~ca44cf0c8a.en.pdf) **What we take from it.** The shape built explicitly for shocks with NO historical precedent to fit against — a channel gate, an amplifier core and a subtractive damper — which is why this metric scores present conditions instead of estimating a probability. **In current use by** [the ESRB, whose recommendation established the pan-European systemic cyber incident coordination framework (EU-SCICF); its terms of reference took effect on 17 January 2025](https://www.esrb.europa.eu/). ### [Rinaldi, Peerenboom & Kelly — infrastructure interdependency and coupling](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/969131) **What we take from it.** The dependency taxonomy and the tight-versus-loose coupling distinction that `channel` and `coupling` score — coupling is read as the ABSENCE of slack, which is that literature's framing. *We publish no current third-party application for this one — we adapt the scale, not a live programme.* ### The full citation trail Transmission-condition assessment, built from four bodies that independently converge on the same three-part shape (a channel gate, an amplifier core, a subtractive damper) — the ERCS barrier model (Commission Delegated Reg. (EU) 2020/2034, binding EU law since Jan 2023), the ESRB systemic cyber-risk conceptual model (2022-24, built explicitly for when historical precedent is absent), RAND's escalation-risk framework (RR-A2215-1, 2025; RR-A972-1, 2022), and Rinaldi-Peerenboom-Kelly dependency and coupling analysis as operationalised by Argonne for DHS/CISA, plus the EC JRC Natech checklist. We ADAPT the structure and vocabulary of these frameworks. **None of the bodies named endorses, reviews, or is connected to this metric**, and their use does not make our values empirical measurements. ## Worked examples Real events from the corpus, scored by the coder and frozen here on **2026-08-19** — check the arithmetic against the formula above. They are snapshots, not live lookups: an event can be re-coded, and an example that changed underneath its own arithmetic would be worse than none. ### Vessel owners reduce Strait of Hormuz traffic amid standoff *Iran · 2026-08-11* A high reading, and the inverted limb doing its job: containment is 0.10, so it enters as 0.90 and RAISES the score. Nothing was damping this. | Sub-factor | Value | The coder's reason | | ------------- | ----- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | `channel` | 0.95 | Operational and physical channels connect the strait to oil shipments, vessel routing, and global energy trade. | | `coupling` | 0.85 | Shipowners are actively avoiding transits because of heightened security risks and uncertainty. | | `breach` | 0.75 | Traffic reached its lowest level in a week amid an ongoing standoff and conflicting claims about navigability. | | `primed` | 0.9 | The waterway is affected by active hostilities and uncertainty over possible U.S.-Iran negotiations. | | `containment` | 0.1 | No rerouting, escort, reserve release, or restoration measure is reported. | $$ \frac{c + k + b + p + (1 - m)}{5} = \frac{0.95 + 0.85 + 0.75 + 0.90 + (1 - 0.10)}{5} = \frac{4.35}{5} = \mathbf{0.87} $$ `propagation_potential` **= 0.87** — what `GET /api/v2/events` returns for this event. ### Britain seizes Russian tanker Smyrtos in English Channel *United Kingdom · 2026-08-13* A mid reading carried by breach and primed rather than by coupling. One vessel is detained, so there is little to be tightly coupled to — but it was a first, into an already-stressed situation. | Sub-factor | Value | The coder's reason | | ------------- | ----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | `channel` | 0.55 | The seizure operates through maritime enforcement, sanctions compliance, and the stated risk of reciprocal action. | | `coupling` | 0.45 | The vessel is physically detained, but no broader operational dependency or immediate deadline is reported. | | `breach` | 0.8 | The article describes the operation as the first of its kind. | | `primed` | 0.7 | The action occurs amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and Putin’s warning of retaliation. | | `containment` | 0.1 | No mediator, exemption, or other active de-escalatory measure is reported. | $$ \frac{c + k + b + p + (1 - m)}{5} = \frac{0.55 + 0.45 + 0.80 + 0.70 + (1 - 0.10)}{5} = \frac{3.40}{5} = \mathbf{0.68} $$ `propagation_potential` **= 0.68** — what `GET /api/v2/events` returns for this event. ### Kyrgyz Ministry fines Talas market 200,000 som *Kyrgyzstan · 2026-08-12* The gate, closed. `channel` is 0.05, so the metric is 0 regardless of the other four — and 0 here is an assertion, not a missing value: nothing connects this fine to anything else. | Sub-factor | Value | The coder's reason | | ------------- | ----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | `channel` | 0.05 | Only a single local enforcement action is identified. | | `coupling` | 0.05 | No tight deadlines, dependencies, or lack of substitutes are reported. | | `breach` | 0.05 | The title does not describe a first-time or unprecedented action. | | `primed` | 0.05 | No broader crisis or stressed system is mentioned. | | `containment` | 0 | No mediator, exemption, or other dampener is reported. | $$ c = 0.05 \le 0.05 \;\Longrightarrow\; \text{propagation\_potential} = \mathbf{0}\quad(k,\,b,\,p,\,m\ \text{never enter}) $$ `propagation_potential` **= 0** — what `GET /api/v2/events` returns for this event. ## When it is `NULL` Never `null`. A gated 0 asserts a fact — "no live transmission channel exists" — rather than an absence, so it must not be read as unknown. Instead the metric is ABSENT from the response entirely, in two cases: a conflict-family event (the four CAMEO+ metrics are omitted rather than returned as 0, since a 0 would assert "measured, and it is the minimum"), and an event coded before the `v2-2026-07-24` contract. These are the readings the definition does not support — building on one of them is building on a promise nobody made. * NOT a forecast and NOT a probability. It does not say a shock WILL travel, or how likely that is, or how many follow-on events there will be. A high score says the routes are open and the slack is gone. * A 0 is NOT a missing value, NOT a low-confidence answer, and NOT a bug. `channel ≤ 0.05` means no live transmission channel exists, so the event is self-contained and 0 is the TRUE value regardless of how dramatic it reads. Measured on a frozen week: 687 of 687 zeroed rows had the gate closed, zero unexplained. * `containment` does NOT add. It is the one inverted sub-factor in the whole metric set: a damper already acting reduces how far a shock travels, so it enters as (1 − containment). Reading it as additive inverts the meaning of that limb. It also scores only dampers the text says are ALREADY acting — never ones that exist on paper. What applies to all four metrics — the frameworks we adapt, how thin the registry coverage is, and the smallest single-event difference worth reading — is on [Limits and error bars](/metrics/limits).