Your organisation's book shares its risk through the network. Under stress, the network shares the risk too.

The supervisor sets the number. The reverse test reads the path backwards.

Your risk team already knows the ~300bp is a given. The ECB set it as a floor across the 2026 SSM geopolitical-risk thematic; it is not derived by your organisation's model, and not a BearingA computation.

The 2026 SSM thematic put the reverse test on the clock across 110 significant institutions, each modelling scenario, transmission and mitigating actions backwards from the prescribed depletion floor SOURCE 219. For a German book the harder question is where the transmission concentrates: an export-Mittelstand corporate book exposed through the Hormuz channel, a domestic real-estate and Pfandbrief cluster, and a Bund-weighted sovereign book whose home-bias holding is the euro-area safe asset.

The magnitude is settled. The path is your organisation's to defend, and for a network bank the path runs through the network itself.

Your organisation's book does not meet five shocks. It meets one geopolitical event.

The five signals your risk committee reads down every quarter (Iran and the US, Hormuz, Russia and Ukraine, Xi and Trump, Turkey) are not five hits landing in parallel. They are one loop that sustains itself, and a German book meets it through what its book actually holds.

Iran closed the strait on 28 February, and the US responded without forcing it back open. Hormuz has carried the physical transmission ever since, and Russia's flow finds better terms in a market shaped this way than in a market not shaped this way, so the closure has an economic underwriting that keeps it stable. A German book meets it first through the export-Mittelstand: firms whose order books and input costs run straight through the corridor. The Pfandbrief and real-estate cluster carries the domestic rate leg. The Bund home-bias carries the sovereign leg, the euro-area safe asset that stabilises the book in most configurations and concentrates it if the safe-asset status itself is questioned. The geopolitical event does not reach every book the same way; it reaches yours through what your book already holds.

Hormuz today: the observed state

Hormuz is not a forecast. It sits at entrenched closure, Day ~159 from the 28 February action, after a full arc across spring and summer: Islamabad MoU on 17 June, collapse between 7 and 12 July, the strait declared closed until further notice. War-risk insurance at roughly eight times pre-crisis, P&I cover withdrawn SOURCE 204 · 205 · 207. That is the operating state your export-Mittelstand is exposed to now.

The read hands you a map, not a number to recompute.

Your risk team already holds the book, and your risk system already runs the quantification for any exposure it has named as material. What neither holds is the reasoning that connects one entangled geopolitical event to which of your specific counterparty groups reach stress first: your Mittelstand exposures, your Pfandbrief cover pool, in what order and at what pace. The supervisor named that gap this year: the inability to quantify group-wide exposures to specific client groups in a crisis. SOURCE 071

So the division of labour this read holds to is the one the supervisor's data-quality framing already assigns. BearingA never touches your book data. What BearingA runs against your audited posture is the reasoning: calibrated so its output arrives in the language your team already uses, against the precedents your team treats as comparable, the channels your team already reads, the thresholds your submission is already framed against. Your team then runs the quantification inside its own audited framework, because that is the framework the submission has to defend from.

Four channels. One ordered cascade.

Your organisation's exposure meets this geopolitical event through the ECB's own transmission taxonomy: financial market, real economy, safety and security, with a policy layer over all three SOURCE 073, resolving in an order specific to a German book.

The reason the order matters for the depletion is asymmetry. Across 47 years of BIS confidential banking statistics over roughly 12,000 country pairs, negative geopolitical events cut cross-border credit 10 to 20 percent more between blocs than within them, while positive events produce no matching increase, because the trust international bank credit requires does not rebuild at the pace it breaks SOURCE 068. The export leg leads and lingers; the domestic legs ride behind it.

Which way this geopolitical event breaks, and what tips it.

Your team needs the direction the event breaks and the trigger that tips it, before your organisation's book registers the move.

Phase identification runs on HMM regime characterisation at p<0.001; the phase-by-cluster pattern is observable in the event's own trace. Three directions can tip the current phase, each through a specific geopolitical trigger onto the ordered cascade above.

Your network shares the risk. Under stress it shares the loss.

Your organisation's submission leans on the institutional-protection scheme, the mutualisation that lets a Sparkassen or Landesbank position carry more than it could alone. That is real capital relief, and it is exactly where the arithmetic quietly misleads.

The 2026 SSM results credit mitigating actions with a material offset: CET1 15.5 percent at end-2025, 12.1 before actions, 13.6 after. The report itself flags them as potentially over-optimistic under a systemic crisis where many banks reach for the same actions at once SOURCE 219 · Chart 5, the fallacy-of-composition caveat the reverse exercise names but does not compose. Mutualisation is the sharpest case of that caveat. It offsets an idiosyncratic loss because healthy members backstop a stressed one. Take a geopolitical event that hits the whole network, an export shock across the Mittelstand the whole Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe lends to. There is no healthy member to draw from. The pooled buffer is a shared mitigation, and shared mitigations obey the fallacy of composition.

Where BearingA stops and your book begins.

Your supervisor cares exactly where the line falls between what a third party can read for you and what only your own team can compose, and it falls in the same place across all three cases.

BearingA reads this geopolitical event and its transmission through your organisation's book, at production cadence, with every load-bearing claim drilled to a primary source. Your team holds the book data (your Mittelstand exposures, your cover pool, your mutualisation entitlements), runs the quantification inside your audited framework, and owns the submission. The division is not BearingA's boundary; it is the supervisor's data-quality framing, and the read composes to it SOURCE 071.

Across all three cases the boundary holds in the same place: Italian SSM, Swiss FINMA, German SSM. That is the simulation's point. One reverse test, three supervisory altitudes, the same discipline and the same line.