Brazil

A rule-taker that came to the regime late: Brazil long resisted the NPT and only acceded in 1998, accepting the prohibition on holding weapons after the architecture was fixed. Its late entry confers no hand on the rule — it is bound by an order built by others, scoring at the floor among non-NWS parties.

How the field was judged across the 12NPT rule-authorship: US/UK/Russia are the 3 depositary governments AND original NWS → top tier (US 95 as primary depositary/architect, UK/Russia 90); France/China are NWS rule-authors but acceded late (1992) → 70; non-NWS parties are rule-takers bound by the regime → 20-25 (Germany/Japan/Italy/Canada 25; Brazil late accession 1998 and South Africa uniquely disarmed before acceding → 20); India is an NPT non-party that rejected the regime entirely → rejecter/outsider, not a rule-taker: outside the framework, neither authoring nor bound by it → 10.

A peripheral inspection subject: Brazil sits on the IAEA only through rotating elected seats, not the Art VI designation of the most atomic-advanced, and is more an object of safeguards than a controller of them. Little hand on the inspection lever.

How the field was judged across the 12Control of the IAEA safeguards/inspection lever via the Art VI designation rule (the 10 'most advanced in atomic-energy technology' get permanent Board influence). The 8 structurally-advantaged of our 12 are US/Russia/China/France/UK/Germany/Japan/Canada → US 90 (regime leader/largest civil+military nuclear base), Russia/China 70, France/UK 65, Germany/Japan 50, Canada 45 (major uranium/civil-nuclear but smaller weight); Italy/India sit only via rotating elected seats → 20; Brazil/South Africa peripheral inspection subjects → 15.

An NPT party with no seat in the bilateral strategic-arms regime or its successor talks: a non-nuclear-weapon state that neither sets nor blocks the terms of restraint. Negligible agenda power on this lever.

How the field was judged across the 12New START EXPIRED 2026-02-05 (before the cutoff) → strategic-arms regime is a VOID at the edition date, so agenda power is suppressed across the board (no holder scores high — there is no live regime to set terms of). Residual agenda power = who shapes the contested successor: US sets the terms (demands a China-inclusive treaty) → 60; China holds blocking power by refusing to join → 50; Russia was co-principal but offered voluntary adherence and was rebuffed → 45; France/UK are NWS voices in multilateral fora but outside the bilateral regime → 20; non-NWS states are NPT parties but non-participants in the bilateral strategic-arms regime, so they shape no terms → 5-10.

Effectively a non-participant: Brazil is a nominal party to the dormant 1947 Rio Treaty but extends no active guarantee and shelters no one. With no live protection relationship to author, it scores at the floor as neither provider nor meaningful recipient.

How the field was judged across the 12Who FORMALLY protects others. US is the principal provider (NATO Art 5 anchor + Japan/Korea/Philippines bilateral + hemispheric Rio umbrella) → 95; France/UK are NATO Art-5 co-guarantors AND independent nuclear-umbrella providers but minor own-deterrents relative to the US → 35; Russia is a rival provider via CSTO (beneficiaries outside our 12) → 20; Germany/Italy/Canada/Japan are recipients/consumers of the umbrella, not providers → 5; China/India/Brazil/South Africa extend no formal extended-deterrence guarantee → 5.

Extracts no terms: Brazil exacts no basing, burden-sharing or alignment price because it provides no active protection. With nothing to extract, it scores at the floor.

How the field was judged across the 12Who EXTRACTS terms (basing, burden-sharing, alignment) in exchange for protection. US is the net provider of terms — converts protection into forward basing in Germany/Italy/Japan/UK + cost-sharing → 95; UK is the closest peer-ally and terms-sharer with its own modest external posture → 30; France runs an independent posture but extracts little from others → 15; Russia extracts basing terms within CSTO (outside our 12) → 15; Germany/Italy/Japan are terms-takers hosting US presence → 5; the rest extract nothing → 5.

Peripheral: Brazil holds no central position in any active provision network, with the Rio Treaty long dormant. As an outsider to the integrated structure it scores at the floor.

How the field was judged across the 12Network centrality as provider, not summed allied force. US is the indispensable hub — SACEUR is always a US officer; anchors NATO integrated command, NORAD, and the Pacific bilateral spokes → 95; UK is a central junior hub (deep US integration, nuclear cooperation) → 35; France is semi-peripheral (left/rejoined integrated command, independent posture) → 25; Russia/China are hubs of RIVAL networks (not the Western provision network) → 25/20; Germany/Italy/Canada/Japan are spokes not hubs → 10; India/Brazil/South Africa non-aligned/peripheral → 5.

No chokepoint command. Brazil holds no standing naval presence at any of the straits world trade must transit and neither sets nor enforces the terms of passage where they bind; on this lever it is a rule-taker, outside the structure of chokepoint control that others command.

How the field was judged across the 12Command of the straits others must transit. US is the only one of the 12 with standing naval command across multiple chokepoints (5th Fleet/Bahrain over Hormuz+Bab-el-Mandeb; 7th Fleet over the Malacca approaches) → 90; China is the sole contender, building blue-water reach but commands no strait yet → 35; UK has residual presence (Diego Garcia, Gulf), junior to US → 20; France has residual presence (Djibouti, Indo-Pacific territories) → 15; India regional Indian-Ocean presence → 10; others have no chokepoint command → 5.

A nominal participant only. Brazil's contribution to the policing of the world's key sea-lanes is marginal; it is listed among CMF participants but provides little real route security, sitting near the bottom of the provision tier.

How the field was judged across the 12Who polices the sea-lanes others depend on (provision, not tonnage). US leads and commands the 47-nation Combined Maritime Forces (HQ Bahrain, US officer commands, 5 task forces over ~3.2m sq mi) → 90; China provides outside the US structure via its own independent Gulf of Aden escort task force → 30; UK/France are leading allied CMF contributors with own deployable reach → 25; India contributes and runs independent IOR patrols → 20; Japan/Italy active CMF participants → 15; Canada/Germany participate → 10; Brazil nominal participant, Russia/South Africa absent → 5.

A second-tier rule-setter. Brazil sits in IMO Council Category B among states with the largest interest in seaborne trade, giving it a real if not top-tier hand on the rules transport must conform to.

How the field was judged across the 12IMO Council seats set the maritime ground rules, tiered by category. Category A (largest shipping interest) — China/Italy/Japan/UK/US → top rule-setting tier 80; Category B (largest seaborne trade) — Brazil/Canada/France/Germany/India → 55; Category C (geographic representation) — South Africa → 35; Russia was voted OFF the Council after 2022 (structural exclusion) → 5.

A Budapest party by accession that also works the rival venue. Brazil acceded to the Western-authored treaty (adopting, not authoring) while remaining engaged in the UN process, leaving it straddling two regimes without authoring either — a hedged rule-taker rather than a rule-setter.

How the field was judged across the 12Who writes the rules of the digital domain (Budapest Convention/CETS-185 vs the rival UN Cybercrime Convention). US/Canada/Japan are founding authors of the dominant Budapest regime → US 90 (lead author), Canada/Japan 70; Russia is principal driver of the rival UN framework (a competing authorship venue) → 65, China co-driver → 60; France/Germany/Italy/UK are Budapest parties = rule-adopters, not authors → 35; Brazil acceded to Budapest but also works the UN process → 30; India is a Budapest non-party that leans toward the UN process without committing → 12; South Africa signed-not-ratified Budapest and merely leans to the UN framework → 8 (the floor: neither authors nor cleanly adopts, below all clean adopters).

A recipient, not a provider. Brazil draws on external cyber-defence standards and CERT cooperation rather than extending protection to others. In Strange's provision frame it is on the receiving end of the structure, not supplying it.

How the field was judged across the 12Who supplies cyber-defence others depend on. US is the primary provider — NATO cyber-defence-pledge anchor, CISA standards exported, allied CERT support → 90; UK provides via NCSC + Five Eyes sharing → 50; France provides via ANSSI + EU framework → 40; Germany provides within EU/NATO → 35; China provides an alternative model (surveillance-stack exports) to its sphere → 35; Japan regional provider and Canada Five Eyes provider → 30; Russia provides an alternative model to its sphere → 25; Italy is a framework participant → 20; India/Brazil/South Africa are recipients/non-providers → 10.

Brazil holds raw-mineral inputs but not the refining or materials-processing step that confers non-substitutable provision power; it supplies ore others process elsewhere. The modest score reflects raw stock without chokepoint control.

How the field was judged across the 12China high on rare-earth refining chokehold; US high on tooling/inputs upstream; Japan on materials (photoresist, silicon wafers); Russia/Brazil/SA on raw-mineral inputs but NOT refining. Leading-edge foundry/litho chokepoints sit with TW/KR/NL (outside set), depressing all 12's absolute scores here.

Brazil holds no advanced process or tooling position and must obtain the indispensable equipment from gatekeepers abroad. Its floor-level score reflects no control of the process.

How the field was judged across the 12US overwhelming via EDA (>85%) + WFE leadership. Japan strong (Tokyo Electron WFE, JSR/Shin-Etsu precursor chemistry & resists). China near-zero at leading-edge process despite SMIC volume.

Brazil wields no production-input denial leverage and participates in none of the export-control regimes governing frontier inputs. Its floor-level score reflects absence from the exclusion lever.

How the field was judged across the 12US + China are the two actors who actually wield production-input denial at scale (semiconductors / rare earths respectively). Japan joined US-aligned WFE controls. EU members get a modest shared EU-regime-participant credit (D16: lever is national, not bloc — euro-style full-bloc attribution does NOT apply).

Brazil sets no production method others adopt and produces by methods authored elsewhere. The floor-level score reflects absence from the method-standard lever.

How the field was judged across the 12US authors the dominant production methods (EDA Big-3 >85% share + 95% lock-in, design-rule/WFE method via Synopsys/AMAT; SIA: US firms 50.4% of global design/sales). Japan co-authors process-chemistry/equipment methods (Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etsu, JSR). Germany niche method-supplier (Trumpf EUV source, Zeiss optics); UK retains Arm ISA design-method authorship in its R&D base; France (Soitec SOI), Italy (ST niche). China authors only domestically enforced GB standards with limited frontier adoption; rest negligible.

Brazil is predominantly a chain participant, supplying inputs and assembling to terms set elsewhere rather than governing dispersed supplier networks, which keeps its exercised lead-firm power near the floor.

How the field was judged across the 12US dominant lead-firm governance (outward FDI + brand/platform lead firms). Japan/Germany strong (Toyota/VW supplier-network governance). China rising lead-firm power but more state-directed. Russia/Brazil/SA low — chain participants, not governors.

Brazil holds only raw-input nodes — ores and agricultural commodities — giving it marginal denial power confined to the extraction end of chains.

How the field was judged across the 12Mirrors input-control chokepoint distribution (US tooling/design nodes; China refining/rare-earth nodes; Japan materials nodes; Russia/Brazil/SA raw-input nodes only).

Brazil adopts the chain standards set elsewhere to qualify its exports rather than authoring rules others must meet, keeping it low on this lever.

How the field was judged across the 12US authors the dominant private chain standards (Apple/Walmart supplier codes, UL, platform/retail rules others must meet to supply). Germany co-authors automotive supplier standards (VDA, IATF) + EU CE/REACH enforced down-chain; Japan co-authors keiretsu/TPS supplier-governance + JIS. France (GlobalGAP), UK (BRCGS), Italy (luxury district governance) niche. China domestic-plus (BYD/CATL sourcing, GB, growing BRI reach). India/Russia/Canada/Brazil/SA chain participants adopting others' standards.

Brazil predominantly eats the adjustment imposed by lead-firm economies, with little capacity to force the burden onto chain partners, keeping it near the floor.

How the field was judged across the 12US imposes adjustment (demand-side leverage + lead-firm position + low input dependence for governance reasons). Eurozone members eat more adjustment (high FVA, interdependent). Russia low-FVA but as isolation, scored down on the governance reading.

At 12 Brazil is a host economy: a few champions invest abroad, but the bulk of relevant production is sited domestically and Brazil absorbs far more foreign plant than its firms relocate. The exit threat over labour is something Brazilian workers face from inbound multinationals, not something Brazilian firms wield abroad.

How the field was judged across the 12Outward stock magnitude + lead-firm relocation capacity. Japan very high (9x out/in ratio = relocates abroad, little inbound). China large stock but more recent/state-directed.

At 8 Brazil is firmly a host: foreign investors negotiate with Brasília over access, while Brazilian firms rarely dictate terms to other governments. Brazil sets conditions on inbound capital but does not project corporate bargaining power outward.

How the field was judged across the 12US dominant (largest firms + treaty-network authorship). Net-controller economies (JP/DE/FR/CA) score high; net-host economies (BR/IN) low. China's bargaining is state-mediated, mid.

At 22 Brazil organizes a modest cross-border mode — a handful of multinationals in agribusiness, mining, and aerospace run intra-firm networks — but most Brazilian production is fed into modes structured abroad. It shapes the mode marginally rather than dictating it.

How the field was judged across the 12US organizes the largest cross-border intra-firm mode (Apple/auto/pharma networks). Mirrors outward-stock control distribution.

At 20 Brazil's outward-control stock is small: a few champions in agribusiness, mining, and aerospace govern production abroad, but the bulk of relevant plant is foreign-controlled within Brazil. It controls little production sited in others' territory.

How the field was judged across the 12Pure outward-stock magnitude (% of world stock). US dominant; China rising; advanced economies high; BR/IN/RU/ZA low.

Brazil participates in trade-rule coalitions, historically on agriculture and development, but exercises limited individual authorship and cannot block or set the core multilateral agenda on its own. Its influence is coalition-mediated rather than self-authored, placing it in the lower-middle tier.

How the field was judged across the 12US authors and blocks multilateral terms (Appellate Body block 2019-, drives plurilaterals). EU is WTO chief negotiator under exclusive competence — DE/FR/IT split by EU Council population share (DE .396/FR .324/IT .279) per D24: authorship is divisible, keyed to the double-majority QMV population threshold; was full-bloc D19. Japan CPTPP custodian; China rising rule-shaper via accession/plurilateral leverage; India defensive blocker (agric/development); UK post-Brexit independent mid voice; Canada coalition-builder (Ottawa Group); Russia/Brazil/SA coalition participants with limited individual authorship.

Brazil largely adopts externally-authored agreement templates rather than producing a model others copy, with Mercosur arrangements exerting little template pull beyond the region. It is essentially a template-taker, scoring near the floor.

How the field was judged across the 12US authors the high-standard template others benchmark (NAFTA/USMCA + TPP: IP, labour, ISDS, digital). EU DCFTA/Association-Agreement + Brussels-effect regulatory templates diffuse globally — DE/FR/IT split by EU Council population share (DE .396/FR .324/IT .279) per D24; was full-bloc D19. Japan CPTPP template steward; China rising template via RCEP/BRI; UK rolls over EU templates + CPTPP (adopter-plus); Canada co-shapes via CPTPP/CETA as partner; India/Russia/Brazil/SA largely adopt others' templates.

Brazil's import market is not large or essential enough to deny others access or dictate terms, leaving it with little market-access denial leverage. It scores near the floor.

How the field was judged across the 12Denial = leverage of a large import market others need access to. US dominant (Section 301/232, tariff weaponization). EU large single market (DE/FR/IT = full EU denial value, D19). China large + uses access as leverage. Small/developing markets cannot deny.

Brazil is a near-pure surplus-capture taker: commodity and assembly value flows on terms authored by buyers and external pricing regimes, with negligible authorship of who retains the surplus. Its low score is the rent-is-not-terms point applied directly.

How the field was judged across the 12US sets surplus-capture terms (IP rents, platform economics, design margin). EU brand/standards rents (DE/FR/IT). China captures volume but sets fewer terms (margin-taker at frontier). Commodity economies low — rent ≠ terms-authorship.

Brazil scores very low as a recurrent adjustment-bearer subject to external financing conditions and conditionality rather than an imposer of burden on others. It carries the cost the structure allocates to it; it does not allocate that cost.

How the field was judged across the 12US dominant (IMF veto + dollar system forces others to adjust). EU bloc imposes via conditionality (DE/FR/IT). China rising via bilateral creditor leverage. Adjustment-BEARERS (IN/BR/ZA) score low.

Brazil has some buyer and seller weight in specific commodity markets but remains mainly a price-taker on terms set by external benchmark regimes. Its low-mid score reflects marginal price-shaping rather than authorship of the terms allocating gains.

How the field was judged across the 12Price-regime SHAPERS score high (US/China large demand sets benchmarks; USD invoicing). Commodity price-TAKERS (RU/BR/ZA) low despite high ToT index — outcome not authorship (the metric's whole point).

Brazil's sovereign curve prices domestic real credit and sets no reference the world discounts external credit against (4). With no meaningful international debt share, its yields function only inside its own market and carry no global benchmark role; Brazil is a price-taker on the global curve, not an author of it.

How the field was judged across the 12US 95 — the UST curve is THE global benchmark others price credit off, USD 45.7% of international debt issuance; no rival on price-setting reach. Euro nations (DE/FR/IT) 48 — the euro risk-free curve (Bund) anchors EUR 40.3% of cross-border debt, the clear #2 benchmark, scored full-bloc per D19 (the curve is the union's, set collectively). UK 28 — gilt curve + GBP 7.5% of international debt, a real third anchor via London. Japan 14, Canada 10, China 10 — domestic curves, sub-1% international debt shares, little price-setting reach beyond their own paper. India/Russia/Brazil/South Africa 3-4 — no global benchmark role.

Brazil has no Fed swap line and offers no crisis-grade outward backstop; the central bank's reach stops at domestic real liquidity (4). It is a backstop-taker dependent on others in a dollar crunch, not a provider.

How the field was judged across the 12US 95 — the Fed is the world's dollar lender of last resort; its swap lines backstopped the entire global banking system in 2008 and 2020, the decisive Mexico-vs-Poland capacity Strange identifies. Euro nations (DE/FR/IT) 42 — the ECB is inside the C6 AND independently provides euro-liquidity backstop to others; scored full-bloc per D19 (one central bank, pooled). UK 35 — BoE in the C6 and extends sterling swaps. Japan 28, Canada 25 — BoJ/BoC inside the standing network, provide their currency's backstop. China 18 — extensive PBoC bilateral RMB swap network, but RMB is not a crisis-grade backstop and China is outside the dollar network. India/Russia/Brazil/South Africa 3-4 — no Fed line, no meaningful outward LOLR provision.

Brazil holds an FSB seat but home-supervises no G-SIBs and authors little of the global prudential rulebook (10). It is a rule-taker at the table, adopting Basel standards rather than writing the terms.

How the field was judged across the 12Scored on two provision levers: authorship of the Basel/FSB rulebook the world's banks adopt, plus home-supervisor status of the 29 G-SIBs. US 90 — leads Basel/FSB AND home-supervises 8 G-SIBs, the most of any state; the dominant but not exclusive rule-author. UK 70 — Basel/FSB co-author, the global bank hub, 3 G-SIBs (punches above its bank count on rule-authorship). France 60 / Germany 55 — euro Basel seats; France home to 4 G-SIBs, Germany 1, both carry euro-bloc rule weight. Japan 45, Canada 40, Italy 40 — Basel/FSB members with 3/2/1 G-SIBs respectively. China 35 — 4 G-SIBs and a Basel/FSB seat, but a rule-taker more than rule-author on the global prudential bargain. India 12, Brazil 10, South Africa 8, Russia 6 — at the FSB table nominally but no G-SIBs and negligible authorship of the global rulebook (Russia further isolated).

The real is scarcely used for cross-border settlement, so Brazil denominates its own trade in currencies issued elsewhere and exercises no grip on the unit world trade must run through. Its 5 marks a taker in the denomination order, dependent on rails others author.

How the field was judged across the 12US 95 — USD 50.5% of intl payments and 80.7% of trade finance, the #1 settlement currency by a wide margin (the denomination rail). Euro nations (DE/FR/IT) 45 — euro 21.3% of payments / #2 in FX and trade finance, full-bloc per D19. UK 40 — GBP 6.5% payments + #3 FX spot + London intermediation. Japan 22 — JPY 3.5% payments, #5 FX. Canada 25 — CAD 3.0% payments, #6 FX (punches above size as a commodity/G7 currency). China 18 — CNY 3.1% payments but rising and #2 in trade finance (8.0%), a real but still-minor settlement role concentrated in its own trade. India/Brazil/Russia/South Africa 4-6 — currencies barely used for cross-border settlement.

The real has a negligible cross-border debt share and no commodity-pricing role, so Brazil — a major commodity exporter — still sells and borrows against benchmarks denominated in others' currencies. Its 4 reflects a taker on both rails, denominating in units it does not issue.

How the field was judged across the 12US 95 — USD 45.7% of international debt issuance AND the commodity-pricing currency (oil, metals), the dual lock the metric is built around. Euro nations 50 — euro 40.3% of cross-border debt (nearly matching USD on the debt face), full-bloc per D19; but the euro does not price commodities, so it trails USD on the combined construct. UK 30 — GBP 7.5% of debt, a real third currency. Japan/Canada 8-10, China 8 — sub-1% debt shares; commodities not priced in their currencies. India/Brazil/Russia/South Africa 3-4 — negligible debt-denomination and no commodity-pricing role.

Brazil's modest quota gives it a relational voice far below the blocking threshold. It is a participant in institutional deliberations, not a state that can block or author reform.

How the field was judged across the 12US 95 — sole holder of the blocking veto in both the IMF and the IBRD (the only member above the 15% threshold); structurally it alone can veto reform. All others are sub-threshold → relational influence only, scored on voting weight as a proxy for board sway: Japan/China ~6% → 18, the larger Europeans 13-16, down to South Africa 0.63% → 3. The gap from US to next is the structural fact.

Brazil is peripheral to the design of IMF/World Bank conditionality and historically a programme recipient rather than an author. Its preferences are not the ones encoded in programme design; it sits near the bottom as a taker, not a director of the agent.

How the field was judged across the 12US 90 — sets the template for conditionality and holds the World Bank presidency by convention. France/UK/Germany 55-60 — the European bloc supplies the IMF Managing Director by convention and co-authors programme design (the transatlantic management duopoly). Japan 30, Canada 25 — meaningful G7 board voice. China 22 — large quota but a programme TAKER, building rival institutions (AIIB) outside this one. India/Brazil/Russia/South Africa low — programme recipients/peripheral to design.

Brazil clears the real and its domestic flows through its own infrastructure, but neither is a rail the outside world must settle through. Its near-floor score reflects sovereign control of its own currency's clearing with no structural hold on the rails cross-border money routes through.

How the field was judged across the 12US dominant: CHIPS (~$1.8tn/day, US-governed via The Clearing House) + Fedwire ($1,148tn annual) clear the dollar — the rail the world routes through. Euro RTGS (TARGET2, Eurosystem) gives DE/FR/IT a mid-tier bloc rail. China (CIPS) building but smaller; UK (CHAPS, GBP) modest; others minimal own-rail control. Positional: a fixed pool of world settlement sliced by who owns the clearing layer.

Brazil holds essentially no power to exclude others from global settlement; it neither participates in collective Western exclusion regimes nor controls a rail others must use. Its very low score reflects a state outside the denial machinery entirely, settling on terms set by the dollar and the EU rather than shaping access for anyone.

How the field was judged across the 12Power to cut access to the settlement system. US overwhelming — it directs exclusions with full extraterritorial reach (OFAC/SDN, SWIFT de-designation; tier: 'full extraterritorial exclusion'). EU secondary — can act collectively on SWIFT (DE/FR/IT 'real-lesser'); UK post-Brexit own OFSI regime (real-lesser). Others none. Positional: who can deny others access to the rail.

Brazil operates no functioning rail that lets others escape US-controlled settlement. Its floor-level score reflects aspiration rather than provision — no established alternative capacity exists today.

How the field was judged across the 12Who runs an independent rail escaping US control. China (CIPS) the main one — 194 direct + 1597 indirect participants, 126 countries, ~5100 banks reached (Mar 2026); the only state with a real alternative dollar-rail. Russia (SPFS) minor domestic substitute. EU (INSTEX) defunct/nil. US scored low BY DESIGN — it IS the mainstream rail, not an alternative — so China leads this provision-of-escape component. Positional: share of the capacity to route around US-controlled settlement.

Brazil has no capacity to exclude others from the financial rails — it neither owns nor governs a chokepoint and exercises no structural denial. Its floor score reflects a state that is shaped by others' exclusion power rather than possessing any of its own.

How the field was judged across the 12Capacity to exclude others from the financial system unilaterally. US overwhelming — full unilateral exclusion of the dollar/SWIFT chokepoint (Iran 2012, Russia 2022). EU collectively secondary (DE/FR/IT mid — can act on SWIFT in concert). UK post-Brexit own OFSI regime, mid-low. Others minimal. Positional: who controls denial of access to the chokepoint others cannot route around.

Brazil has no capacity to compel third-country compliance with any sanction it issues; it neither owns the clearing leverage nor legislates secondary reach. Its floor score reflects a state that conforms to others' extraterritorial demands rather than imposing its own.

How the field was judged across the 12Whose sanctions force THIRD-country compliance (secondary sanctions, dollar-clearing leverage). US uniquely extraterritorial — forces global third-country conformity. EU/UK far behind: no concept of secondary sanctions, EU passed a blocking statute to RESIST US secondary reach (measures bind only own nationals = primary). Others negligible. Positional: share of the capacity to make third parties conform.

Brazil's managers run a domestic savings pool and do not provide a globally-allocating function; its slice of the world's manager-domicile pool is small, placing it firmly in the taker tier of the allocation structure.

How the field was judged across the 12US overwhelmingly dominant (63% of global AUM, the Big-Three). Positional: a fixed pool of the world's investable capital sliced among manager-domiciles — US holds the majority slice. UK (asset-mgmt hub) + France (Crédit Agricole/Amundi) the next tier. China's AUM is large but domestically-bound, not globally-allocating. Others minor.

Brazil's capital owns its domestic champions but holds little of the residual claim on the world's strategic firms; its cross-border ownership is small, leaving it a minor holder in the global ownership structure.

How the field was judged across the 12US dominant — the Big-Three are the largest or near-largest holders of most global strategic firms (the D18 attribution: TSMC/ASML power resolves to US capital). Positional: a firm's equity is a fixed pool sliced among holders; US holders take the largest slices. China owns its OWN champions (state + domestic funds) = a self-contained ownership bloc, scored modestly (owns inward, not the world's firms). Others hold scattered stakes.

Brazil's cross-border equity reach is minor; it is neither a destination the world's savings route into nor a significant outbound allocator, sitting near the bottom as a taker in the integrated allocative system.

How the field was judged across the 12US + UK are the cross-border equity hubs (savings worldwide route into US markets; London the intermediation centre). SUPPORTING signal only — CPIS vintage spread (US 2011 vs JP 2022, India GAP) bars it from a clean cross-section, so it is weighted lightly and the score leans on the US-market-depth + AUM picture. India GAP flagged.

Lowest. ABNT participates in ISO/IEC but holds a negligible share of secretariats and convenorships; Brazil is a standards-taker in these bodies, present as a member but not authoring the technical rules others must conform to.

How the field was judged across the 12Composite of secretariat-holding (the rule-pen) and convenorship (working-level steering). Germany/China/US form the top tier (DE leads secretariats, US leads convenorships, CN second on both — the rise of SAC is the standout structural fact). Japan/France/UK a clear second tier. Italy/Canada/India mid. Russia/Brazil/S.Africa low — participants, not pen-holders.

Very low. Brazil has a minimal RFC-authorship record and does not shape the foundational protocols; it is an interoperator with a stack authored and custodied by others.

How the field was judged across the 12US overwhelmingly dominant — both by RFC authorship (6180, ~10x the next) AND by historical/custodial control of the foundational protocol stack (IETF origin, IANA/ICANN, root governance). Europe (DE/UK/FR) and China form a second tier on authorship volume; China rising. Basis note: the metric doc asks who *shapes*, not who *counts* — historical custody of the protocol stack (not author volume alone) anchors the US top score.

Market-gatekeeper over its own market. Brazil has exercised access-denial through court actions and data-localization pressure against foreign platforms, compelling them to conform domestically. It enforces access rules for its territory without owning the platforms or setting rules beyond its borders.

How the field was judged across the 12Anchored to the per-nation authority_tier below (rule-setting / access-denial, NOT user share). US is the structural platform gatekeeper — owns and sets access rules for the app stores, cloud, and mobile OS the world must route through, plus export-control-linked access denial. China second: a sovereign-walled parallel platform sphere (super-apps, HarmonyOS, domestic cloud) that gatekeeps the China market but is not yet globally gatekeeping. India/Brazil are market-gatekeepers (app bans, data-localization, court actions) over their own markets. EU states (DE/FR/IT) + UK are rule-setters-not-owners (DMA/DSA/GDPR / DMCC 'Brussels effect'), scored individually per D16. Russia sovereign-walled-minor; Canada rule-influence-minor; South Africa rule-taker.

Brazil scores at the floor on origination: it adopts the leading-edge technology others create and originates almost none of it. Its position here is that of a taker drawing from frontiers authored elsewhere, with negligible breakthrough creation of its own.

How the field was judged across the 12US is the origination frontier across domains (AI, biotech, internet, space). China the clear #2 and rising fast (frontier-model origination near-parity). UK/Germany/France/Japan/Canada a research-strong second tier (UK DeepMind-lineage, France Mistral, Canada AI-research depth). Italy/India/Russia mid (capacity but few frontier origins). Brazil/S.Africa low. This is where the metric surfaces 'leader vs follower' honestly.

Brazil has a small defence-research base and negligible conversion into commercial dominance; the spillover pipeline is largely absent. It scores near the floor, drawing on technology developed elsewhere rather than running its own military-to-commercial engine.

How the field was judged across the 12US top — uniquely effective defence→commercial spillover engine (DARPA archetype,). China high on both spend scale AND a deliberate civil-military-fusion pipeline. Russia scores above its GERD rank on the MILITARY side (strong defence R&D) but weak commercial spillover. The score weights spillover EFFICIENCY + scale, not GERD alone — so China's spend lead does not flip the #1.

Brazil has effectively no frontier-model presence and no compute gatekeeping power, accessing AI through stacks controlled elsewhere. It sits near the floor as a pure taker of the current frontier, dependent on chokepoints it has no hand in setting.

How the field was judged across the 12US controls the frontier-model + compute stack (top labs + the chip-design/cloud chokepoints it can deny — see technology-denial-regimes). China the only near-peer on frontier-model output (192 vs 210 since 2023) but compute-constrained by US export controls. France (Mistral) the strongest of the rest. Brazil/S.Africa/India/Italy near-zero frontier presence — genuine, not gaps.

Brazil has negligible authorship of any technology-denial regime: it is outside the core export-control clubs at the frontier and writes no controls others must coordinate around. With no chokepoint technology and no regime-writing role, it sits at the floor — neither author nor enforcer, simply absent from the denial architecture.

How the field was judged across the 12US dominant — authors the binding entity/chip-control lists others react to; Wassenaar is its multilateral frame. Japan/NL-tier (DE/FR/UK) author meaningful national controls + EU dual-use reg. China NON-member of Wassenaar but builds its OWN counter-denial (rare-earth/gallium export controls) — scored low here on WESTERN-regime authorship but note: China's denial capacity lives in indispensable-input-control (Production). Russia a member but no frontier tech to deny. Brazil/SA negligible.

Brazil has negligible enforcement reach in the technology-denial regime: no extraterritorial mechanism, no frontier exports to license, and no role in compelling compliance. It scores at the floor — neither enforcer nor reliable node, simply outside the enforcement architecture.

How the field was judged across the 12US near-monopoly on extraterritorial enforcement (FDPR + market access leverage). Japan scores as a COMPLIANT enforcer (implemented the 23-item SME controls July 2023) with some own reach. EU states enforce within EU dual-use frame. China has counter-enforcement (its own export-control law, unreliable-entity list) but limited extraterritorial bite — scored modest. Most others are rule-TAKERS who comply, not enforcers.

Brazil has essentially nothing non-substitutable to deny in the technology-denial regime: no frontier chokepoint, no critical-technology lever. Its criticality is at the floor — any withholding would be absorbed elsewhere with no structural bite.

How the field was judged across the 12US holds the most non-substitutable chokepoints (EDA, GPU design, key SME). Japan strong (SME). China scores MODEST here despite being the TARGET — because it now wields its OWN bite via rare-earth/gallium/germanium controls (non-substitutable inputs), a genuine counter-denial; but its advanced-tech denial capacity is limited. NL (the EUV monopoly) is the single most critical non-12 node. Most nations: nothing non-substitutable to deny.

Brazil is part of the contesting bloc that led the TRIPS-flexibilities and access-to-medicines pushback alongside India and South Africa. Bound into TRIPS as a WTO member, it pursued a genuine but defensive agenda to widen public-health exceptions rather than to author the regime itself, which places it modestly above pure rule-takers but well below the architects.

How the field was judged across the 12US dominant — TRIPS architect + ongoing regime-driver (Special 301, TRIPS-plus). EU bloc strong co-author (DE/FR/IT carry EU-negotiation weight on rule-setting). Japan high-standard adherent. China/India/Brazil/SA = the rule-TAKER / contesting bloc (India+Brazil+SA led the TRIPS-flexibilities / access-to-medicines pushback — genuine but DEFENSIVE agenda, scored modestly above pure takers). Russia low.

Brazil enforces IP domestically but exercises virtually no extraterritorial reach: it cannot exclude rivals from external markets or shape global licensing through its courts. Its very low score reflects the near-total absence of outward exclusionary capacity.

How the field was judged across the 12US near-unique extraterritorial exclusion (Section 337 import bans + market leverage). EU strong but bloc-internal (UPC from 2023 — DE the heaviest patent-litigation venue). China scores notably here — growing enforcement + anti-suit injunctions setting global FRAND rates (a real counter-reach). Most others enforce only domestically.

Brazil is a regional idea-voice with reach across Latin America but limited conferral of authority beyond it. It receives and adapts globally-authored frameworks more than it originates ones others treat as legitimate, leaving it near the bottom on intellectual leadership.

How the field was judged across the 12Scored from the per-nation authority_tier below (belief-conferral, NOT export volume). US is the paradigm-author — originates the dominant economic/policy paradigms and the agenda-defining academic + think-tank ecosystem (the modern Adam-Smith lever). UK is the anglophone co-author (Oxbridge/LSE, The Economist), punching above size. China is the rising counter-paradigm — the only state offering a coherent alternative belief-model at scale (state-led development, 'Chinese modernization'), though adopted more by dependency than voluntary conviction. France/Germany hold distinct tradition/model authority (Enlightenment/Francophonie; Ordoliberalism). India rising-civilizational; Russia spoiler-narrative; the rest regional/heritage voices.

Brazil does not provide a language or credential system others operate in; Portuguese is regionally bounded and its institutions sit inside externally-set standards. It is a credential importer and a taker on this lever, which places it near the bottom.

How the field was judged across the 12The anglophone US-UK axis dominates — English as lingua franca + the top credential institutions + the student magnet. The US is the clear #1; UK punches far above size (language + Oxbridge/Russell Group). Canada/France mid (credential magnets in their language spheres). China scores modestly DESPITE rising universities — it is a net credential IMPORTER (Mandarin not a lingua franca; sends 1M+ students out). India high English-use but credential IMPORTER. The metric rewards whose system others OPERATE IN.

Brazil transmits some regional and cultural norms with reach across Latin America, but limited adoption of a distinct value-set beyond it. It receives globally-authored norms more than it provides ones others adopt, placing it near the bottom on this lever.

How the field was judged across the 12Scored on belief ADOPTION, not media volume, from the per-nation authority_tier below. US is the default global value-set exporter (liberal-democratic, market, individual-rights norms). UK/France co-export rule-of-law / civic norms with real diffusion (Commonwealth, Francophonie). China is the genuine alternative-norm pole — development-without-conditionality and sovereignty-over-intervention norms adopted across parts of the BRI-linked Global South. Germany a regulatory/social-market norm-anchor; Russia diffuses sovereigntist counter-norms by affinity not authority; the rest narrower regional or aesthetic norm-sets.

Brazil's research is routed through Western indexing systems it does not control, and it operates no globally accepted channel of its own that decides which findings count. It sits just above the floor as a content-producer dependent on external machinery to have its findings counted, authoring none of the rules itself.

How the field was judged across the 12US + UK dominate (Clarivate/WoS + Elsevier-RELX's UK base + the top journals/venues). Germany strong (Springer Nature). The rest are content PRODUCERS routed through Western channels, not channel-owners. China building rival indices (CNKI, its own journals) — rising but its researchers still chase WoS/Scopus indexing = channel-dependency. The metric scores who DECIDES which findings count.

Brazil is a pure orbital dependent: it provides no PNT or global comms channel of its own and relies entirely on infrastructure run by others. It scores near the floor because it imposes no dependency anyone cannot escape — it is the one that cannot escape.

How the field was judged across the 12US dominant — GPS (the default the world depends on) + Starlink's 65% LEO share. China #2: BeiDou (full global) + rising constellations. Russia: GLONASS (global but degraded). EU (DE/FR/IT) share Galileo = real bloc orbital channel. Japan/India regional PNT only. Brazil/SA = pure dependents, no orbital channel.

Brazil engages in ITU spectrum and orbital processes but, on the core channel rules, remains predominantly a rule-taker rather than an author. It works within the spectrum, orbital, and data-governance terms set by the leading powers and blocs, adopting more than it shapes.

How the field was judged across the 12US leads (internet governance + heaviest ITU/orbital presence + GPS standard). EU bloc strong on spectrum + data-governance rules (Galileo + GDPR — DE/FR/IT bloc weight). China rising ITU influence + sovereign data rules + BeiDou standard. Russia ITU member with GLONASS standard. Others = rule-takers.