Write a PREreview

Working paper / preprint — not peer-reviewed. This is a companion simulation study to Aly (2026), Economic Sovereignty: Engineering the Interest-Free System [https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=7253121]. Simulation code and validation modules were AI-generated; the economic framework under test is the author's original work. All results are conditional on the model's specific parametric assumptions and should be read as structural properties of a stylised theoretical model, not empirical predictions about real-world economies.

This paper presents a comparative macro-simulation of two financial architectures — a conventional interest-based system ("Legacy") and a profit-and-loss-sharing system ("Sovereign") — across ten macroeconomic stability tiers, using a Monte Carlo framework (200 runs per tier, 4,000 total paths, 30-year horizon, seed=42 for full reproducibility). Two metrics are introduced: the Kinetic Efficiency Index (KEI), integrating growth, inflation deviation, and debt burden, and a state-space Divergence Metric, D(t), quantifying structural separation between the regimes over time.

Under the model's parameterisation, the Sovereign architecture shows lower debt-crisis probability in low-to-moderate stress environments, while both architectures converge toward high failure rates under severe stress, with the Sovereign system's primary vulnerability shifting to a money-velocity-driven inflation channel above moderate stress levels. An internal validation exercise (formula verification, ±25% sensitivity analysis, cross-model comparison against Domar, Fisher, Taylor-rule, and stock-flow-consistent frameworks) is reported alongside the main results, including limitations: the model's policy-rate rule is intentionally sub-stabilising relative to the Taylor principle, shock sequences are not strictly identical across regimes in a given run, and the transition simulation assumes a frictionless institutional shift not present in real-world monetary reform. These limitations are discussed in full in the paper's validation appendix.

Corrections, critique, and independent replication are welcome — contact mo_barakatm@yahoo.com.