Check, explain and retain the comparison

A useful output names the comparison and explains why it changes. Check the baseline first, then interpret the climate result with the chosen settings and model limits alongside it.

Five baseline checks

Have you compared the loaded debt figures with the same period, coverage and valuation in a country source?
Is the revenue-to-GDP ratio plausible given WEO forecasts?
Does the expenditure path reflect realistic spending trends?
Can you explain the fiscal-rule response, any target crossings and whether the baseline debt floor binds?
Do the primary and overall balance paths make economic sense given the country’s fiscal history?

Read a scenario difference

Choose the year and identify both paths. A debt-ratio difference is measured in percentage points of GDP. A GDP difference expressed relative to the baseline is a percentage. Check the units on the chart and in the data table. Record whether a path has crossed zero or hit a floor before describing the gap.

The displayed range across the six built-in scenarios is a range of those model runs. It is not a probability interval or an exhaustive range of future climate outcomes. State the mechanism: changed productivity affects GDP, revenue and the spending response, then debt. The size of the debt gap depends on baseline fiscal assumptions.

Read the climate and adaptation scenarios

Paris, Moderate, High and Hot use different global temperature assumptions. Hot adapted and Hot unadapted hold the Hot temperature path while changing the assumed speed of economic adjustment. They do not specify the spending, financing or design of a Ugandan adaptation programme. A national mitigation commitment also does not select the global Paris path.

A no-estimate notice means the supplied climate slice cannot establish the country’s climate effect. Overlapping paths in that case are not evidence that the country is safe from climate risk.

Use the data table to check the chart

Read the same country, mode, scenario and year in the data view. Reconcile a suspicious chart value before writing about it. The WEO-to-model boundary and the scenario start should agree with the run’s metadata. If a parameter change appears not to matter, check whether it is inactive or whether you are looking at supplied WEO years.

Save a result and reopen it

Give the run a recognisable label. Add an analyst’s note stating the finding, purpose and unfinished evidence checks.
Review the settings and rationale in Export. Restore the headline settings after sensitivities.
Download the packet, or the individual run file and outputs you need. Keep the data and calculation identities with any chart sent to a colleague.
Import the saved run file. Check the country, mode, settings and any compatibility warning before treating the new display as a reproduction.

Exact replay requires compatible calculations and matching inputs. Older Current files predate the full-window revision. Their settings can be reused, but an import warning means their old results have not been reproduced. Keep the original packet for that record.

Write the finding in two paragraphs

In the first paragraph, name the data revision, assumptions, scenario, start and comparison year. Give the GDP and debt differences with the right units and explain their fiscal mechanism. In the second, identify the assumptions that need evidence, the sensitivity result and what the model leaves unanswered. Answer three challenges: Is this a forecast? Why this rigidity value? Is the debt gap the cost of climate change?

The workshop can end with a provisional comparison and clearly marked open work. A completed country analysis needs the reproducible packet, two explanatory paragraphs and two sensitivity comparisons, reviewed for assumptions, baseline, interpretation and writing. This is a completion checklist, not certification for publication.

Help shape the next iteration

This Explorer is an early iteration intended to support ministry analysts’ actual work. After trying a run, note what was hard to find, what result was hard to explain and what output would help you brief senior management. A concrete example of the task and where it stalled is more useful than a general rating. Share that feedback in the workshop or through the Explorer’s feedback link.