It is a relational configuration characterised by:
\u2013 internal equilibrium
\u2013 structural interdependencies
\u2013 absorption margin
\u2013 systemic position
\u2013 multidomain dynamics.
Each MST assessment always refers to the macro-area observed in the analytical cycle<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Six Fundamental Domains<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For each macro-area, the framework observes the level of structural pressure across six fundamental domains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Security and Strategic Postures<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Deterrence postures, regional frictions, alliance recalibrations and security configurations. For each domain, a Domain Score (DS) is assigned: a value on a scale of 1\u20135 that expresses the intensity of the structural pressure observed in the domain during the analysis cycle. In addition to structural pressure, the framework assesses the macro-area's capacity to withstand and absorb such pressure without generating systemic discontinuities. This dimension is measured by the Adaptive Capacity Index (ACI), expressed on a scale of 1-5. Net Domain (ND) integrates pressure and absorption capacity into a single value for each domain. The MST Score is the score that synthesizes the overall structural state of the macro-area in the analysis cycle. It is derived from the weighted integration of the Net Scores of the six observed domains. The MacroBase scale articulates structural space into five configurations, each corresponding to a different level of systemic compression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Configurations do not describe discrete states. The system can be in transition between thresholds, and the direction of movement\u2014in addition to the absolute position\u2014has autonomous analytical meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tensions emerge within the domains. Within the MST framework, three analytical levels describe the state of the system: the systemic pressure observed across domains, the resulting configuration within macro-areas, and the systemic category synthesized in the GSA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Energy and Infrastructure Architectures<\/strong>
Critical supply chains, logistical nodes, physical networks and energy choke points.
Financial and Monetary Circuits<\/strong>
Sanctions regimes, capital flow stress, monetary leverage, and systemic interdependencies.
Regulatory and Normative Standards<\/strong>
Standards, compliance mechanisms, and systemic constraints embedded in economic and institutional rules.
Cognitive and Informational Domain<\/strong>
Strategic narratives, construction of perceived risk, and normalization of political and economic options.
Technological\u2013Industrial Ecosystems<\/strong>
Strategic industrial supply chains, access to critical components, and competition over technological standards.
The domains they do not describe isolated events<\/strong>.
They describe Persistent structural conditions<\/strong> that can alter the strategic balance over time.
The comparability between macro-areas derives from the use of the same domains and the same observation logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMeasurement in domains<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Domain Score (DS)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The DS does not reflect individual events. It is the result of the intensity of the observed pressures, their persistence over time, and their degree of interconnection within the domain.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAdaptive Capacity Index (ACI)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A high ICA indicates a resilient structure capable of containing pressure. A low ICA signals systemic fragility: even moderate pressures can produce disproportionate effects.
The ICA is not calculated on all six domains. It is based on four core domains\u2014Security, Energy, Finance, and Cognitive\u2014which constitute the structural pillars of a macro-area's adaptive capacity.
For each of these domains, the evaluation is structured around four transversal dimensions:
\u2013 Robustness<\/strong>the robustness of the fundamental structures of the domain.
\u2013 Redundancy<\/strong>the availability of alternative routes, reserves, and structural backups.
\u2013 Adaptability<\/strong>: speed and shock response capability.
\u2013 Cohesion<\/strong>the system's ability to act in a coordinated manner under pressure.
For each core domain, the ICA value summarizes the four dimensions of robustness, redundancy, adaptability, and cohesion. The overall ICA for the macro-area is derived from the integration of the four core domains.
The ICA is not recalculated entirely with each cycle. Cyclic updating is bound by precise conditions: it requires documented structural variations in distinct domains, with verified persistence and inter-domain convergence. Full recalculation is permitted only in the presence of extraordinary systemic events or during periodic reviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNet Domain (ND)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
It expresses not only the intensity of a pressure, but the actual weight that such pressure exerts on a structure with a specific holding capacity. An identical DS produces different DNs depending on the available absorption margin: the same pressure weighs differently on different systems.
The DN constitutes the operational unit used by the framework to compare different domains and build the synthetic score for the macro-area.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe synthetic score: MST Score<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A Convergence Factor (CF) is applied to the resulting value: a coefficient that measures the degree of synchronization between domains. The Convergence Factor does not measure the severity of individual pressures, but rather the extent to which they tend to reinforce each other.
When pressures in different areas do not operate independently but amplify each other, the overall systemic risk is greater than the sum of individual pressures. The FC captures this dimension and incorporates it into the final score.
The MST Score is then placed on the MacroBase scale, which allows reading the structural configuration of the macro-area in the considered cycle and following its evolution over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe MacroBase Scale<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/csr-italia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Immagine-26-05-26-08.56.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nStructural pressure and absorption margin<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Structural pressure<\/strong> represents the systemic intensity of those tensions.
It does not derive from a single event, but from the combination of:
\u2014 density of tensions
\u2014 persistence over time
\u2014 interconnection across domains.
Alongside pressure, the framework also considers the absorption margin<\/strong>, that is, the capacity of the macro-area to sustain those pressures without generating systemic discontinuities.
The systemic equilibrium of a macro-area therefore depends on the relationship between the intensity of structural pressure and the absorption capacity of the regional system.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPressure, configuration and category<\/h2>\n\n\n\n