From abdcdb581fcb0398eda9fdf5bd2a1680be38baf9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Elie Habib <elie.habib@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 12:02:48 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] feat(resilience): SWF manifest expansion + KIA split + new
 schema fields (#3391)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

* feat(resilience): SWF manifest expansion + KIA split + new schema fields

Phase 1 of plan 2026-04-25-001 (Codex-approved round 5). Manifest-only
data correction; no construct change, no cache prefix bump.

Schema additions (loader-validated, misplacement-rejected):
- top-level: aum_usd, aum_year, aum_verified (primary-source AUM)
- under classification: aum_pct_of_audited (fraction multiplier),
  excluded_overlaps_with_reserves (boolean; documentation-only)

Manifest expansion (13 → 21 funds, 6 → 13 countries):
- UAE: +ICD ($320B verified), +ADQ ($199B verified), +EIA (unverified —
  loaded for documentation, excluded from scoring per data-integrity rule)
- KW: kia split into kia-grf (5%, access=0.9) + kia-fgf (95%,
  access=0.20). Corrects ~18× over-statement of crisis-deployable
  Kuwait sovereign wealth (audit found combined-AUM × 0.7 access
  applied $750B as "deployable" against ~$15B actual GRF stabilization
  capacity).
- CN: +CIC ($1.35T), +NSSF ($400B, statutorily-gated 0.20 tier),
  +SAFE-IC ($417B, excluded — overlaps SAFE FX reserves)
- HK: +HKMA-EF ($498B, excluded — overlaps HKMA reserves)
- KR: +KIC ($182B, IFSWF full member)
- AU: +Future Fund ($192B, pension-locked)
- OM: +OIA ($50B, IFSWF member)
- BH: +Mumtalakat ($19B)
- TL: +Petroleum Fund ($22B, GPFG-style high-transparency)

Re-audits (Phase 1E):
- ADIA access 0.3 → 0.4 (rubric flagged; ruler-discretionary deployment
  empirically demonstrated)
- Mubadala access 0.4 → 0.5 (rubric flagged); transparency 0.6 → 0.7
  (LM=10 + IFSWF full member alignment)

Rubric (docs/methodology/swf-classification-rubric.md):
- New "Statutorily-gated long-horizon" 0.20 access tier added between
  0.1 (sanctions/frozen) and 0.3 (intergenerational/ruler-discretionary).
  Anchored by KIA-FGF (Decree 106 of 1976; Council-of-Ministers + Emir
  decree gate; crossed once in extremis during COVID).

Seeder:
- Two new pure helpers: shouldSkipFundForBuffer (excluded/unverified
  decision) and applyAumPctOfAudited (sleeve fraction multiplier)
- Manifest-AUM bypass: if aum_verified=true AND aum_usd present,
  use that value directly (skip Wikipedia)
- Skip funds with excluded_overlaps_with_reserves=true (no
  double-counting against reserveAdequacy / liquidReserveAdequacy)
- Skip funds with aum_verified=false (load for documentation only)

Tests (+25 net):
- 15 schema-extension tests (misplacement rejection, value-range gates,
  rationale-pairing coherence, backward-compat with pre-PR entries)
- 10 helper tests (shouldSkipFundForBuffer + applyAumPctOfAudited
  predicates and arithmetic; KIA-GRF + KIA-FGF sum equals combined AUM)
- Existing manifest test updated for the kia → kia-grf+kia-fgf split

Full suite: 6,940 tests pass (+50 net), typecheck clean, no new lint.

Predicted ranking deltas (informational, NOT acceptance criteria per
plan §"Hard non-goals"):
- AE sovFiscBuf likely 39 → 47-49 (Phase 1A + 1E)
- KW sovFiscBuf likely 98 → 53-57 (Phase 1B)
- CN, HK (excluded), KR, AU acquire newly-defined sovFiscBuf scores
- GCC ordering shifts toward QA > KW > AE; AE-KW gap likely 6 → ~3-4

Real outcome will be measured post-deploy via cohort audit per plan
§Phase 4.

* fix(resilience): completeness denominator excludes documentation-only funds

PR-3391 review (P1 catch): the per-country `expectedFunds` denominator
counted ALL manifest entries (`funds.length`) including those skipped
from buffer scoring by design — `excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true`
(SAFE-IC, HKMA-EF) and `aum_verified: false` (EIA). Result: countries
with mixed scorable + non-scorable rosters showed `completeness < 1.0`
even when every scorable fund matched. UAE (4 scorable + EIA) would
show 0.8; CN (CIC + NSSF + SAFE-IC excluded) would show 0.67. The
downstream scorer then derated those countries' coverage based on a
fake-partial signal.

Three call sites all carried the same bug:
- per-country `expectedFunds` in fetchSovereignWealth main loop
- `expectedFundsTotal` + `expectedCountries` in buildCoverageSummary
- `countManifestFundsForCountry` (missing-country path)

All three now filter via `shouldSkipFundForBuffer` to count only
scorable manifest entries. Documentation-only funds neither expected
nor matched — they don't appear in the ratio at all.

Tests added (+4):
- AE complete with all 4 scorable matched (EIA documented but excluded)
- CN complete with CIC + NSSF matched (SAFE-IC documented but excluded)
- Missing-country path returns scorable count not raw manifest count
- Country with ONLY documentation-only entries excluded from expectedCountries

Full suite: 6,944 tests pass (+4 net), typecheck clean.

* fix(resilience): address Greptile P2s on PR #3391 manifest

Three review findings, all in the manifest YAML:

1. **KIA-GRF access 0.9 → 0.7** (rubric alignment): GRF deployment
   requires active Council-of-Ministers authorization (2020 COVID
   precedent demonstrates this), not rule-triggered automatic
   deployment. The rubric's 0.9 tier ("Pure automatic stabilization")
   reserved for funds where political authorization is post-hoc /
   symbolic (Chile ESSF candidate). KIA-GRF correctly fits 0.7
   ("Explicit stabilization with rule") — the same tier the
   pre-split combined-KIA was assigned. Updated rationale clarifies
   the tier choice. Rubric's 0.7 precedent column already lists
   "KIA General Reserve Fund" — now consistent with the manifest.

2. **Duplicate `# ── Australia ──` header before Oman** (copy-paste
   artifact): removed the orphaned header at the Oman section;
   added proper `# ── Australia ──` header above the Future Fund
   entry where it actually belongs (after Timor-Leste).

3. **NSSF `aum_pct_of_audited: 1.0` removed** (no-op): a multiplier
   of 1.0 is identity. The schema field is OPTIONAL and only meant
   for fund-of-funds split entries (e.g. KIA-GRF/FGF). Setting it
   to 1.0 forced the loader to require an `aum_pct_of_audited`
   rationale paragraph with no computational benefit. Both the
   field and the paragraph are now removed; NSSF remains a single-
   sleeve entry that scores its full audited AUM.

Full suite: 6,944 tests pass, typecheck clean.
---
 docs/methodology/swf-classification-rubric.md |   1 +
 scripts/seed-sovereign-wealth.mjs             | 119 +++-
 .../shared/swf-classification-manifest.yaml   | 530 +++++++++++++++++-
 scripts/shared/swf-manifest-loader.mjs        | 131 ++++-
 tests/swf-classification-manifest.test.mjs    |  34 +-
 ...-manifest-loader-schema-extension.test.mjs | 387 +++++++++++++
 6 files changed, 1171 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tests/swf-manifest-loader-schema-extension.test.mjs

diff --git a/docs/methodology/swf-classification-rubric.md b/docs/methodology/swf-classification-rubric.md
index cdbcfd38e..19c10f355 100644
--- a/docs/methodology/swf-classification-rubric.md
+++ b/docs/methodology/swf-classification-rubric.md
@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ Deployment SPEED (weeks vs months vs years) is the core signal.
 | Tier | Value | Meaning | Concrete precedents |
 |---|---|---|---|
 | Nil access | **0.1** | Sanctions, asset freeze, or political paralysis makes deployment effectively impossible within a crisis window | Russia NWF (post-2022 asset freeze), Libya LIA (sanctions + frozen assets), Iran NDFI (sanctions + access concerns). Currently deferred from v1 for this reason. |
+| Statutorily-gated long-horizon | **0.20** | Withdrawals require statutory supermajority / bicameral-equivalent action; gate has been crossed in extreme cases (single, capped draw under emergency law) but NOT for ordinary stabilization. Distinct from "Intergenerational savings" (0.3) because the gate is *statutory* rather than ruler-discretionary — Council-of-Ministers + parliamentary or constitutional thresholds replace head-of-state direction. | KIA Future Generations Fund (Decree 106 of 1976; Council-of-Ministers + Emir decree required; gate crossed once during COVID for a small capped draw). Phase 1B addition (Plan 2026-04-25-001). |
 | Intergenerational savings | **0.3** | Pure long-horizon wealth-preservation mandate; no explicit stabilization rule; withdrawal requires ruler / head-of-state / parliamentary discretion with no codified trigger | ADIA (Abu Dhabi, intergenerational mandate, ruler-discretionary); Brunei BIA (deferred candidate) |
 | Hybrid / constrained | **0.5** | Mandate mixes strategic + savings + partial stabilization; deployment is mechanically possible but constrained by strategic allocation locked to policy objectives (Vision 2030, industrial policy, geopolitical holdings) | PIF (Saudi Arabia, Vision 2030-locked), QIA (Qatar, long-horizon wealth-management with amiri-decree deployment), Mubadala (UAE, strategic + financial hybrid), Ireland ISIF (strategic-development mandate) |
 | Explicit stabilization with rule | **0.7** | Legislated or rule-based mechanism for fiscal support during specific shock classes, with historical precedent of actual deployment | KIA General Reserve Fund (legislated finance of budget shortfalls from oil-revenue swings). NO GPFG is BORDERLINE — has a fiscal rule capping withdrawal at ~3% expected real return, which is an access MECHANISM but also an access CONSTRAINT (see below). NOTE: GIC is discussed in the alignment table below as a candidate for this tier based on its NIRC framework, but the current manifest rates it 0.6 — so it's a 0.7 *candidate*, not a 0.7 *precedent*. |
diff --git a/scripts/seed-sovereign-wealth.mjs b/scripts/seed-sovereign-wealth.mjs
index 1042d363f..2535338ec 100644
--- a/scripts/seed-sovereign-wealth.mjs
+++ b/scripts/seed-sovereign-wealth.mjs
@@ -655,6 +655,56 @@ async function fetchWikipediaInfobox(fund, fxRates) {
 
 // ── Aggregation ──
 
+/**
+ * Pure predicate: should this manifest fund be SKIPPED from the
+ * SWF buffer calculation? Returns the skip reason string or null.
+ *
+ * Two skip conditions (Phase 1 §schema):
+ *   - `excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true` — AUM already counted
+ *     in central-bank FX reserves (SAFE-IC, HKMA-EF). Excluding
+ *     prevents double-counting against reserveAdequacy /
+ *     liquidReserveAdequacy.
+ *   - `aum_verified: false` — fund AUM not primary-source-confirmed.
+ *     Loaded for documentation; excluded from scoring per the
+ *     data-integrity rule (Codex Round 1 #7).
+ *
+ * Pure function — exported for tests.
+ *
+ * @param {{ classification?: { excludedOverlapsWithReserves?: boolean }, aumVerified?: boolean }} fund
+ * @returns {'excluded_overlaps_with_reserves' | 'aum_unverified' | null}
+ */
+export function shouldSkipFundForBuffer(fund) {
+  if (fund?.classification?.excludedOverlapsWithReserves === true) {
+    return 'excluded_overlaps_with_reserves';
+  }
+  if (fund?.aumVerified === false) {
+    return 'aum_unverified';
+  }
+  return null;
+}
+
+/**
+ * Pure helper: apply the `aum_pct_of_audited` multiplier to a
+ * resolved AUM value. When the fund's classification has no
+ * `aum_pct_of_audited`, returns the AUM unchanged.
+ *
+ * Used for fund-of-funds split entries (e.g. KIA-GRF is ~5% of the
+ * audited KIA total; KIA-FGF is ~95%).
+ *
+ * Pure function — exported for tests.
+ *
+ * @param {number} resolvedAumUsd
+ * @param {{ classification?: { aumPctOfAudited?: number } }} fund
+ * @returns {number}
+ */
+export function applyAumPctOfAudited(resolvedAumUsd, fund) {
+  const pct = fund?.classification?.aumPctOfAudited;
+  if (typeof pct === 'number' && pct > 0 && pct <= 1) {
+    return resolvedAumUsd * pct;
+  }
+  return resolvedAumUsd;
+}
+
 async function fetchFundAum(fund, wikipediaCache, fxRates) {
   // Source priority: official → IFSWF → Wikipedia list → Wikipedia
   // per-fund infobox. Short-circuit on first non-null return so the
@@ -779,22 +829,41 @@ export async function fetchSovereignWealth() {
 
     const fundRecords = [];
     for (const fund of funds) {
-      const aum = await fetchFundAum(fund, wikipediaCache, fxRates);
+      const skipReason = shouldSkipFundForBuffer(fund);
+      if (skipReason) {
+        console.log(`[seed-sovereign-wealth]   ${fund.country}:${fund.fund} skipped — ${skipReason}`);
+        continue;
+      }
+
+      // AUM resolution: prefer manifest-provided primary-source AUM
+      // when verified; fall back to the existing Wikipedia/IFSWF
+      // resolution chain otherwise (existing entries that pre-date
+      // the schema extension still work unchanged).
+      let aum = null;
+      if (fund.aumVerified === true && typeof fund.aumUsd === 'number') {
+        aum = { aum: fund.aumUsd, aumYear: fund.aumYear ?? null, source: 'manifest_primary' };
+      } else {
+        aum = await fetchFundAum(fund, wikipediaCache, fxRates);
+      }
       if (!aum) {
         unmatched.push(`${fund.country}:${fund.fund}`);
         continue;
       }
+
+      const adjustedAum = applyAumPctOfAudited(aum.aum, fund);
+      const aumPct = fund.classification?.aumPctOfAudited;
       sourceMix[aum.source] = (sourceMix[aum.source] ?? 0) + 1;
 
       const { access, liquidity, transparency } = fund.classification;
-      const rawMonths = (aum.aum / denominatorImports) * 12;
+      const rawMonths = (adjustedAum / denominatorImports) * 12;
       const effectiveMonths = rawMonths * access * liquidity * transparency;
 
       fundRecords.push({
         fund: fund.fund,
-        aum: aum.aum,
+        aum: adjustedAum,
         aumYear: aum.aumYear,
         source: aum.source,
+        ...(aumPct != null ? { aumPctOfAudited: aumPct } : {}),
         access,
         liquidity,
         transparency,
@@ -805,9 +874,23 @@ export async function fetchSovereignWealth() {
 
     if (fundRecords.length === 0) continue;
     const totalEffectiveMonths = fundRecords.reduce((s, f) => s + f.effectiveMonths, 0);
-    const expectedFunds = funds.length;
+    // Completeness denominator excludes funds that were INTENTIONALLY
+    // skipped from buffer scoring (excluded_overlaps_with_reserves OR
+    // aum_verified=false). Without this, manifest entries that exist
+    // for documentation only would artificially depress completeness
+    // for countries with mixed scorable + non-scorable funds — e.g.
+    // UAE (4 scorable + EIA unverified) would show completeness=0.8
+    // even when every scorable fund matched, and CN (CIC + NSSF
+    // scorable + SAFE-IC excluded) would show 0.67.
+    //
+    // The right denominator is "scorable funds for this country":
+    // funds where shouldSkipFundForBuffer returns null. Documentation-
+    // only entries are neither matched nor expected; they don't appear
+    // in the ratio at all.
+    const scorableFunds = funds.filter((f) => shouldSkipFundForBuffer(f) === null);
+    const expectedFunds = scorableFunds.length;
     const matchedFunds = fundRecords.length;
-    const completeness = matchedFunds / expectedFunds;
+    const completeness = expectedFunds > 0 ? matchedFunds / expectedFunds : 0;
     // `completeness` signals partial-seed on multi-fund countries (AE,
     // SG). Downstream scorer must derate the country when completeness
     // < 1.0 — silently emitting partial totalEffectiveMonths would
@@ -816,7 +899,7 @@ export async function fetchSovereignWealth() {
     // use the partial number for IMPUTE-level coverage), but only
     // completeness=1.0 countries count toward recordCount / health.
     if (completeness < 1.0) {
-      console.warn(`[seed-sovereign-wealth] ${iso2} partial: ${matchedFunds}/${expectedFunds} funds matched — completeness=${completeness.toFixed(2)}`);
+      console.warn(`[seed-sovereign-wealth] ${iso2} partial: ${matchedFunds}/${expectedFunds} scorable funds matched — completeness=${completeness.toFixed(2)}`);
     }
     countries[iso2] = {
       funds: fundRecords,
@@ -886,8 +969,16 @@ export async function fetchSovereignWealth() {
  * @param {Record<string, { matchedFunds: number, expectedFunds: number, completeness: number }>} countries Seeded country payload
  */
 export function buildCoverageSummary(manifest, imports, countries) {
-  const expectedFundsTotal = manifest.funds.length;
-  const expectedCountries = new Set(manifest.funds.map((f) => f.country));
+  // Coverage denominator excludes manifest entries that are
+  // documentation-only by design — funds with
+  // `excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true` (SAFE-IC, HKMA-EF) or
+  // `aum_verified: false` (EIA). Counting them as "expected" would
+  // depress the headline coverage ratio for countries with mixed
+  // scorable + non-scorable fund rosters. Same fix as the per-country
+  // completeness denominator above; see comment there.
+  const scorableManifestFunds = manifest.funds.filter((f) => shouldSkipFundForBuffer(f) === null);
+  const expectedFundsTotal = scorableManifestFunds.length;
+  const expectedCountries = new Set(scorableManifestFunds.map((f) => f.country));
   let matchedFundsTotal = 0;
   for (const entry of Object.values(countries)) matchedFundsTotal += entry.matchedFunds;
   // Every status carries a `reason` field so downstream consumers that
@@ -925,8 +1016,18 @@ export function buildCoverageSummary(manifest, imports, countries) {
 }
 
 function countManifestFundsForCountry(manifest, iso2) {
+  // Counts SCORABLE funds for the given country (excludes documentation-
+  // only entries: `excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true` and
+  // `aum_verified: false`). Used by buildCoverageSummary's missing-
+  // country path so the "expected" figure on a missing country reflects
+  // what the seeder would actually try to score, not all manifest
+  // entries.
   let n = 0;
-  for (const f of manifest.funds) if (f.country === iso2) n++;
+  for (const f of manifest.funds) {
+    if (f.country !== iso2) continue;
+    if (shouldSkipFundForBuffer(f) !== null) continue;
+    n++;
+  }
   return n;
 }
 
diff --git a/scripts/shared/swf-classification-manifest.yaml b/scripts/shared/swf-classification-manifest.yaml
index 17f595933..c6c7a0452 100644
--- a/scripts/shared/swf-classification-manifest.yaml
+++ b/scripts/shared/swf-classification-manifest.yaml
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
 # re-runs the seeder against the new entry to confirm 8/N live match.
 
 manifest_version: 1
-last_reviewed: 2026-04-23
+last_reviewed: 2026-04-25
 # REVIEWED means: coefficients derive from the committed rationale +
 # sources block and the seeder end-to-end matches the expected funds
 # against the live Wikipedia / IFSWF / official-disclosure surfaces.
@@ -111,13 +111,26 @@ funds:
       abbrev: ADIA
       fund_name: Abu Dhabi Investment Authority
     classification:
-      access: 0.3
+      # Phase 1E re-audit (Plan 2026-04-25-001): bumped from 0.3 → 0.4.
+      # ADIA's official mandate is intergenerational, but its
+      # ruler-discretionary deployment pattern (2009 Mubadala bailout
+      # precedent, recurring budget-support contributions to Abu Dhabi
+      # treasury) reflects higher empirical access than the 0.3
+      # "intergenerational" tier suggests. The 0.4 mid-tier value sits
+      # between intergenerational (0.3) and hybrid-constrained (0.5).
+      access: 0.4
       liquidity: 0.7
       transparency: 0.5
     rationale:
       access: |
-        Intergenerational savings mandate; no explicit stabilization
-        access rule. Ruler-discretionary deployment. Low-medium access.
+        Official mandate is long-horizon intergenerational savings,
+        but ruler-discretionary deployment has been demonstrated:
+        Mubadala 2009 bailout precedent, periodic budget-support
+        contributions to Abu Dhabi treasury, strategic infusions
+        during Dubai's 2009 GCC crisis. Empirical access falls
+        between the strict intergenerational tier (0.3) and the
+        hybrid-constrained tier (0.5). Phase 1E re-audit bumped
+        the score from 0.3 → 0.4 to reflect this.
       liquidity: |
         ADIA 2024 review discloses ~55-70% public-market (equities +
         bonds) allocation, balance in alternatives and real assets.
@@ -134,24 +147,143 @@ funds:
     wikipedia:
       fund_name: Mubadala Investment Company
     classification:
-      access: 0.4
+      # Phase 1E re-audit (Plan 2026-04-25-001): rubric flagged
+      # Mubadala's pre-PR access=0.4 as below the 0.5 hybrid-tier
+      # midpoint and transparency=0.6 as under-rated for an LM=10
+      # IFSWF full member. Both bumped to align with the rubric.
+      access: 0.5
       liquidity: 0.5
-      transparency: 0.6
+      transparency: 0.7
     rationale:
       access: |
         Strategic + financial hybrid mandate — combines economic-
-        diversification assets with financial investments. Medium
-        access for fiscal support; constrained by strategic holdings.
+        diversification assets with financial investments. The 2024
+        ADQ-related corporate restructuring (consolidation of Abu
+        Dhabi state investment vehicles) reinforces Mubadala's
+        treatment as a hybrid-constrained 0.5-tier vehicle: deployable
+        for fiscal support, constrained by strategic holdings.
+        Access bumped from 0.4 → 0.5 in Phase 1E re-audit.
       liquidity: |
         Mixed: ~50% public equities + credit, ~50% private equity,
         real estate, infrastructure (Mubadala 2024 annual report).
       transparency: |
         Audited AUM published, asset-mix disclosed annually. IFSWF
-        member. LM index = 10.
+        full member. LM index = 10. Bumped from 0.6 → 0.7 in
+        Phase 1E re-audit to align with the rubric tier (0.7 = audited
+        AUM + asset-class mix + returns disclosed annually).
     sources:
       - https://www.mubadala.com/en/annual-review
       - https://www.ifswf.org/member-profiles/mubadala-investment-company
 
+  # Investment Corporation of Dubai — Dubai-government holding
+  # company. Owns Emirates Airlines, ENBD, Dubai Holdings, and
+  # significant Emaar / DEWA stakes. Distinct from ADIA (Abu Dhabi
+  # emirate) and Mubadala (Abu Dhabi strategic). Phase 1A addition.
+  - country: AE
+    fund: icd
+    display_name: Investment Corporation of Dubai (ICD)
+    wikipedia:
+      abbrev: ICD
+      fund_name: Investment Corporation of Dubai
+    aum_usd: 320000000000
+    aum_year: 2023
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.5
+      liquidity: 0.5
+      transparency: 0.4
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Dubai-government holding company; finances Dubai-emirate
+        budget directly during shocks. 2009 GCC bailout precedent
+        when ICD-affiliated entities (Dubai World, Nakheel) were
+        actively rolled into broader fiscal support. Hybrid-
+        constrained 0.5 tier — deployment is mechanically possible
+        but constrained by strategic holdings (Emirates Airlines,
+        ENBD).
+      liquidity: |
+        Mixed portfolio: Emaar + ENBD + DEWA + Borse Dubai listed
+        equity stakes (~50% public market) balanced against
+        Emirates Airlines + Dubai Holdings real estate (~50%
+        private). 0.5 mid-liquidity tier.
+      transparency: |
+        ICD publishes consolidated audited financial highlights but
+        does not disclose holdings-level detail. LM index ~4.
+        Annual review available via icd.gov.ae but constituent
+        AUM disclosure is partial.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.icd.gov.ae/en/about-icd/our-portfolio/
+      - https://www.icd.gov.ae/en/news-and-publications/
+
+  # ADQ (Abu Dhabi Developmental Holding Company) — strategic
+  # investment vehicle established 2018, distinct from ADIA and
+  # Mubadala. Phase 1A addition.
+  - country: AE
+    fund: adq
+    display_name: Abu Dhabi Developmental Holding Company (ADQ)
+    wikipedia:
+      abbrev: ADQ
+      fund_name: ADQ
+    aum_usd: 199000000000
+    aum_year: 2024
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.5
+      liquidity: 0.4
+      transparency: 0.4
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Hybrid strategic-investment vehicle under Abu Dhabi
+        government control. Mandate covers economic diversification
+        + strategic asset stewardship. Medium access for fiscal
+        support; access discipline closer to Mubadala than to ADIA's
+        long-horizon savings tier.
+      liquidity: |
+        Heavy in private equity, food + agriculture (Agthia, Modern
+        Bakery), real estate, healthcare, and energy. Limited public-
+        market exposure relative to ADIA. ~0.4 mid-low liquidity.
+      transparency: |
+        ADQ publishes AUM and asset-class summaries via corporate
+        press releases and select press disclosures (Reuters, FT
+        primary reporting). IFSWF observer-only. LM index ~4.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.adq.ae/about-us/
+      - https://www.adq.ae/news-and-insights/
+
+  # Emirates Investment Authority (EIA) — federal-level UAE wealth
+  # vehicle distinct from emirate-level (ADIA, ICD, ADQ, Mubadala)
+  # funds. Limited public disclosure — primary-source AUM not
+  # verifiable as of 2026-04-25; entry loaded for documentation but
+  # excluded from buffer scoring per data-integrity rule
+  # (`aum_verified: false`). Phase 1A addition; revisit when EIA
+  # publishes audited consolidated statements.
+  - country: AE
+    fund: eia
+    display_name: Emirates Investment Authority (EIA)
+    aum_verified: false
+    classification:
+      access: 0.4
+      liquidity: 0.5
+      transparency: 0.2
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Federal-level UAE reserves vehicle (cf. emirate-level ADIA/
+        ICD). Mandate covers federal fiscal stabilization for
+        emirate-fiscal-shock smoothing. Access is constrained by
+        federal/emirate political coordination; rated mid-low.
+      liquidity: |
+        Limited public disclosure; mix presumed to mirror federal-
+        reserves convention (majority public-market) but not
+        verified.
+      transparency: |
+        Limited public disclosure. Reuters cites federal-level AUM
+        figures but EIA itself does not publish audited annual
+        statements at the level of ADIA / Mubadala / ICD. LM index
+        ~2. Marked `aum_verified: false` until primary disclosure
+        materializes.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.eia.gov.ae/en/
+
   # ── Saudi Arabia ──
   # PIF combines stabilization, strategic-diversification, and domestic
   # development mandates. Asset mix is heavily domestic-strategic
@@ -182,29 +314,97 @@ funds:
       - https://www.ifswf.org/members
 
   # ── Kuwait ──
-  # KIA runs two legally distinct funds: General Reserve Fund (budget-
-  # financing) and Future Generations Fund (intergenerational). Combined
-  # here since audited AUM is reported at the KIA level.
+  # KIA's audited $1.072T AUM is split here per Kuwaiti Public Funds
+  # Law and Decree 106 of 1976 (FGF) into two sleeves with materially
+  # different access profiles. Phase 1B addition (Plan 2026-04-25-001).
+  # Combined-AUM modeling overstated the crisis-deployable balance by
+  # ~18× (2026-04-24 audit) because GRF's `access=0.7` haircut was
+  # applied to the full $1.072T, when ~95% of that AUM is FGF and
+  # constitutionally gated. The split correctly attributes GRF's
+  # stabilization mandate to its own ~5% sleeve and FGF's
+  # statutorily-gated long-horizon profile to the remaining ~95%.
   - country: KW
-    fund: kia
-    display_name: Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA)
+    fund: kia-grf
+    display_name: Kuwait Investment Authority — General Reserve Fund (KIA-GRF)
     wikipedia:
+      # Wikipedia/SWFI report the COMBINED audited KIA AUM; the loader
+      # multiplies by aum_pct_of_audited (5% for GRF, 95% for FGF) to
+      # recover per-sleeve effective balance. No Wikipedia abbrev
+      # specifically for GRF.
       abbrev: KIA
       fund_name: Kuwait Investment Authority
     classification:
       access: 0.7
       liquidity: 0.8
       transparency: 0.4
+      aum_pct_of_audited: 0.05
     rationale:
       access: |
-        General Reserve Fund explicitly finances budget shortfalls from
-        oil-revenue swings. Strongest stabilization access in the Gulf.
+        Kuwaiti Public Finance Law explicitly directs GRF to absorb
+        oil-revenue shortfalls and finance budget deficits. Drained
+        to negative balance during 2020 COVID shock; refilled by
+        domestic + international borrowing. The 2020 deployment
+        required active Council-of-Ministers authorization (NOT
+        post-hoc/symbolic), which keeps GRF in the rubric's 0.7
+        "Explicit stabilization with rule" tier — a legislated
+        mechanism with deployment precedent — rather than the 0.9
+        "automatic stabilization" tier (which requires
+        rule-triggered automatic deployment, e.g. Chile ESSF).
+        The original combined-KIA `access=0.7` matched this tier;
+        kept here for the GRF sleeve.
       liquidity: |
         Predominantly public-market (~75-85% listed equities + fixed
         income). Private-asset sleeve is a minority allocation.
+        Same portfolio profile as KIA-FGF — classification independent.
       transparency: |
         Financials reported to National Assembly but sealed from
         public; partial IFSWF engagement. LM index = 6.
+      aum_pct_of_audited: |
+        GRF receives oil revenues and finances the budget; its
+        steady-state balance is roughly 5% of KIA's combined audited
+        AUM. The fraction varies year-to-year (negative in 2020-21
+        during COVID, refilled by 2022-23). Using a representative
+        steady-state share avoids dependency on year-specific
+        balances that aren't separately disclosed.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.kia.gov.kw/en/
+      - https://www.ifswf.org/member-profiles/kuwait-investment-authority
+
+  - country: KW
+    fund: kia-fgf
+    display_name: Kuwait Investment Authority — Future Generations Fund (KIA-FGF)
+    wikipedia:
+      abbrev: KIA
+      fund_name: Kuwait Investment Authority
+    classification:
+      access: 0.20
+      liquidity: 0.8
+      transparency: 0.4
+      aum_pct_of_audited: 0.95
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        FGF withdrawals require Council-of-Ministers + Emir decree
+        (Decree 106 of 1976; 2020 amendment did NOT remove the gate,
+        only added an emergency-pathway provision used once during
+        COVID for a small, capped draw). Not legally accessible for
+        ordinary stabilization. Score 0.20 reflects: (a) below the
+        0.3 "intergenerational/ruler-discretionary" tier because
+        the gate is bicameral-equivalent + statutory, (b) above
+        the 0.1 "sanctions/frozen" tier because the gate has been
+        crossed in extremis. Anchors a NEW rubric tier between 0.1
+        and 0.3 (see swf-classification-rubric.md "Statutorily-gated
+        long-horizon" tier added in Phase 1B).
+      liquidity: |
+        Same portfolio profile as GRF; classification independent.
+      transparency: |
+        Same portfolio profile as GRF; reported to National Assembly
+        but sealed from public; partial IFSWF engagement. LM index = 6.
+      aum_pct_of_audited: |
+        FGF receives 10% of state revenue annually + accumulated
+        returns; in steady state holds ~95% of KIA's combined
+        audited AUM. The 5/95 split is per Kuwait's Public Funds
+        Law and is the canonical proportion published by KIA in
+        IFSWF disclosures.
     sources:
       - https://www.kia.gov.kw/en/
       - https://www.ifswf.org/member-profiles/kuwait-investment-authority
@@ -302,6 +502,304 @@ funds:
       - https://www.temasekreview.com.sg/
       - https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/our-financials
 
+  # ── China ──
+  # Phase 1C addition (Plan 2026-04-25-001). Three CN sovereign-wealth
+  # vehicles tracked by SWFI/IFSWF; SAFE Investment Co is excluded
+  # from the buffer dim because its AUM is part of the SAFE umbrella
+  # consolidated FX reserves (already counted in reserveAdequacy /
+  # liquidReserveAdequacy).
+  - country: CN
+    fund: cic
+    display_name: China Investment Corporation (CIC)
+    wikipedia:
+      abbrev: CIC
+      fund_name: China Investment Corporation
+    aum_usd: 1350000000000
+    aum_year: 2023
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.4
+      liquidity: 0.5
+      transparency: 0.3
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Hybrid strategic-investment vehicle with PBOC + MOF
+        coordination required for major redeployment. Long-horizon
+        external mandate (CIC International) plus state-directed
+        domestic financial holdings (Central Huijin) — flexible in
+        principle but politically constrained. 0.4 mid-tier.
+      liquidity: |
+        ~50% public-market (listed equities + bonds via CIC
+        International), ~50% private (Central Huijin domestic banking
+        stakes, alternative investments). Mid-liquidity.
+      transparency: |
+        Annual report publishes AUM and asset-class summary; holdings-
+        level disclosure limited to large public stakes (13F-equivalent
+        for U.S. holdings). LM index ~3-4.
+    sources:
+      - http://www.china-inv.cn/en/
+      - https://www.swfinstitute.org/profile/cic
+
+  - country: CN
+    fund: nssf
+    display_name: National Council for Social Security Fund (NSSF)
+    wikipedia:
+      fund_name: National Council for Social Security Fund
+    aum_usd: 400000000000
+    aum_year: 2023
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.20
+      liquidity: 0.5
+      transparency: 0.4
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Pension-purpose: NSSF holdings are statutorily reserved for
+        social-security payment obligations. Withdrawals for
+        non-pension fiscal stabilization are not permitted under
+        current Chinese law. Maps to the 0.20 "statutorily-gated
+        long-horizon" tier added in Phase 1B (KIA-FGF analogue).
+      liquidity: |
+        Mix of listed equities, fixed income, and strategic
+        unlisted holdings (banking IPO seedings). Mid-liquidity.
+      transparency: |
+        Annual report publishes AUM totals + broad allocation; per-
+        holding disclosure limited.
+    sources:
+      - http://www.ssf.gov.cn/
+      - https://www.swfinstitute.org/profile/nssf
+
+  - country: CN
+    fund: safe-ic
+    display_name: SAFE Investment Company Limited
+    aum_usd: 417000000000
+    aum_year: 2024
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.5
+      liquidity: 0.7
+      transparency: 0.3
+      excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Subsidiary of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange
+        (SAFE); manages a portion of China's FX reserves abroad.
+        Documentation-only — see excluded rationale.
+      liquidity: |
+        Predominantly listed equities + sovereign bonds (FX-reserve-
+        like portfolio composition).
+      transparency: |
+        Limited public disclosure; AUM tracked via SWFI third-party
+        estimates. LM index ~2.
+      excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: |
+        SAFE Investment Co's AUM is part of China's State Administration
+        of Foreign Exchange consolidated reserves. Including it in the
+        SWF buffer would double-count against `reserveAdequacy` /
+        `liquidReserveAdequacy`, both of which already capture
+        SAFE-managed FX reserves. Documentation-only entry; excluded
+        from buffer scoring.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.swfinstitute.org/profile/safe-investment-company
+
+  # ── Hong Kong ──
+  # HKMA Exchange Fund. Backing Portfolio is reserves-equivalent
+  # (already in reserveAdequacy); Investment Portfolio + Future Fund
+  # branch could be SWF-relevant but the consolidated AUM is
+  # reported as one figure. Excluded from buffer to avoid double-
+  # counting against HK monetary-authority reserves.
+  - country: HK
+    fund: hkma-ef
+    display_name: HKMA Exchange Fund
+    aum_usd: 498000000000
+    aum_year: 2024
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.7
+      liquidity: 0.9
+      transparency: 0.7
+      excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Statutory mandate: maintain HKD peg + back banking system.
+        High access for monetary stabilization; stabilization is the
+        primary mandate. Documentation-only — see excluded rationale.
+      liquidity: |
+        Predominantly listed equities + sovereign bonds + USD cash.
+        Highly liquid by design (Backing Portfolio is reserves).
+      transparency: |
+        HKMA publishes monthly Exchange Fund balance sheet + annual
+        report. LM index ~8.
+      excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: |
+        HKMA Exchange Fund's Backing Portfolio is reserves-equivalent
+        and is captured under `reserveAdequacy` / `liquidReserveAdequacy`.
+        Investment Portfolio + Future Fund are not separately disclosed
+        at AUM level. To avoid double-counting, excluded from buffer.
+        Implementation-Time Unknown #2 in the parent plan flagged this
+        for follow-up: when HKMA discloses Investment Portfolio AUM
+        separately, the Investment Portfolio sleeve could be added as
+        a non-excluded entry.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/data-publications-and-research/
+
+  # ── South Korea ──
+  - country: KR
+    fund: kic
+    display_name: Korea Investment Corporation (KIC)
+    wikipedia:
+      abbrev: KIC
+      fund_name: Korea Investment Corporation
+    aum_usd: 182000000000
+    aum_year: 2024
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.3
+      liquidity: 0.7
+      transparency: 0.7
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Long-horizon mandate; KIC manages assets under MOEF + Bank
+        of Korea entrustment but does not have an explicit
+        stabilization mandate. Withdrawals require entrustment
+        agreement modification. Intergenerational tier.
+      liquidity: |
+        ~70% public-market (listed equities + sovereign + corporate
+        bonds), ~30% alternatives (private equity, real estate,
+        infrastructure, hedge funds).
+      transparency: |
+        IFSWF full member. Annual report published with detailed
+        asset allocation, returns, and partial holdings. LM index ~7.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.kic.kr/en/
+      - https://www.ifswf.org/member-profiles/korea-investment-corporation
+
+  # ── Oman ──
+  # OIA established 2020 by merging State General Reserve Fund (SGRF)
+  # + Oman Investment Fund (OIF). IFSWF member; rubric pre-flagged
+  # as "Shippable". Phase 1D addition.
+  - country: OM
+    fund: oia
+    display_name: Oman Investment Authority (OIA)
+    wikipedia:
+      abbrev: OIA
+      fund_name: Oman Investment Authority
+    aum_usd: 50000000000
+    aum_year: 2024
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.5
+      liquidity: 0.5
+      transparency: 0.5
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Hybrid mandate: SGRF (now part of OIA) historically funded
+        budget shortfalls during oil downturns; OIF (now part of OIA)
+        was the strategic vehicle. Combined OIA inherits both;
+        deployment for fiscal support is mechanically possible but
+        coordinated through Ministry of Finance. Mid-tier hybrid.
+      liquidity: |
+        Mixed: external public-market (managed by external managers)
+        + domestic strategic stakes + alternative investments. Mid.
+      transparency: |
+        OIA publishes annual review post-2020 merger; IFSWF full
+        member. LM index ~6.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.oia.gov.om/
+      - https://www.ifswf.org/member-profiles/oman-investment-authority
+
+  # ── Bahrain ──
+  - country: BH
+    fund: mumtalakat
+    display_name: Mumtalakat Holding Company
+    wikipedia:
+      fund_name: Mumtalakat Holding Company
+    aum_usd: 19000000000
+    aum_year: 2024
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.4
+      liquidity: 0.4
+      transparency: 0.6
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Bahraini state strategic-investment vehicle. Holdings
+        concentrated in domestic banking (BBK, NBB), aluminum
+        (ALBA), telecoms (Batelco). Deployable for fiscal support
+        via dividend flow but not via primary-asset liquidation
+        without disrupting strategic positions.
+      liquidity: |
+        Domestic strategic holdings + foreign-listed equity stakes.
+        Mid-low liquidity.
+      transparency: |
+        Audited annual report, asset-class disclosures. IFSWF
+        member. LM index ~7.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.mumtalakat.bh/en
+      - https://www.ifswf.org/member-profiles/mumtalakat-holding-company
+
+  # ── Timor-Leste ──
+  # Petroleum Fund of Timor-Leste — rubric flagged as
+  # "high-transparency textbook fit". High-transparency fund
+  # benchmark; Banco Central de Timor-Leste publishes monthly
+  # statements + annual reports. Phase 1D addition.
+  - country: TL
+    fund: petroleum-fund
+    display_name: Petroleum Fund of Timor-Leste
+    aum_usd: 22000000000
+    aum_year: 2024
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.7
+      liquidity: 0.9
+      transparency: 0.9
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Norwegian-model petroleum fund: fiscal-rule-based annual
+        Estimated Sustainable Income (ESI) drawdown for budget
+        support. Statutorily codified deployment trigger; closer
+        to GPFG's rule-based stabilization than to KIA-FGF's
+        long-horizon lock. 0.7 explicit-stabilization tier.
+      liquidity: |
+        ~60% sovereign bonds, ~40% global equities. Highly liquid.
+      transparency: |
+        Monthly statements published by Banco Central de Timor-Leste;
+        annual report with full holdings disclosure. LM index ~9.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.bancocentral.tl/en/petroleum-fund
+      - https://www.swfinstitute.org/profile/petroleum-fund-of-timor-leste
+
+  # ── Australia ──
+  - country: AU
+    fund: future-fund
+    display_name: Australian Future Fund
+    wikipedia:
+      fund_name: Future Fund (Australia)
+    aum_usd: 192000000000
+    aum_year: 2024
+    aum_verified: true
+    classification:
+      access: 0.3
+      liquidity: 0.5
+      transparency: 0.8
+    rationale:
+      access: |
+        Established 2006 to fund Commonwealth of Australia
+        unfunded superannuation liabilities. Statutorily restricted
+        from drawdown until 2027 (originally — extended). Long-
+        horizon savings tier. Australian fiscal practice has used
+        Future Fund AUM as a buffer signal in budget discussions
+        but no operational drawdown has occurred for stabilization.
+      liquidity: |
+        Mixed: ~30% listed equities, ~25% alternatives, ~20% bonds,
+        ~15% real estate + infrastructure, ~10% private equity.
+        Mid-liquidity.
+      transparency: |
+        Quarterly portfolio updates with asset-class breakdowns;
+        annual report with detailed performance + holdings discussion.
+        LM index ~9.
+    sources:
+      - https://www.futurefund.gov.au/
+      - https://www.swfinstitute.org/profile/australia-future-fund
+
 # ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
 # CANDIDATES DEFERRED FROM V1
 # ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
diff --git a/scripts/shared/swf-manifest-loader.mjs b/scripts/shared/swf-manifest-loader.mjs
index 34a35285a..348f20503 100644
--- a/scripts/shared/swf-manifest-loader.mjs
+++ b/scripts/shared/swf-manifest-loader.mjs
@@ -31,6 +31,23 @@ const MANIFEST_PATH = resolve(here, './swf-classification-manifest.yaml');
  * @property {number} access       0..1 inclusive
  * @property {number} liquidity    0..1 inclusive
  * @property {number} transparency 0..1 inclusive
+ * @property {number} [aumPctOfAudited]  OPTIONAL 0..1; multiplier applied
+ *                                       to the matched audited AUM, used
+ *                                       when one entry represents only a
+ *                                       fraction of a combined audited
+ *                                       fund (e.g. KIA-GRF vs KIA-FGF
+ *                                       split of audited KIA AUM).
+ * @property {boolean} [excludedOverlapsWithReserves] OPTIONAL; when true,
+ *                                       the seeder loads the entry for
+ *                                       documentation but EXCLUDES it
+ *                                       from buffer calculation. Used
+ *                                       for funds whose AUM is already
+ *                                       counted in central-bank FX
+ *                                       reserves (SAFE Investment Co,
+ *                                       HKMA Exchange Fund) to avoid
+ *                                       double-counting against the
+ *                                       reserveAdequacy /
+ *                                       liquidReserveAdequacy dims.
  */
 
 /**
@@ -52,8 +69,20 @@ const MANIFEST_PATH = resolve(here, './swf-classification-manifest.yaml');
  * @property {string} displayName   human-readable fund name
  * @property {SwfWikipediaHints} [wikipedia] optional lookup hints for the
  *                                           Wikipedia fallback scraper
+ * @property {number} [aumUsd]      OPTIONAL primary-source AUM in USD.
+ *                                  When present AND `aumVerified === true`,
+ *                                  the seeder uses this value directly
+ *                                  instead of resolving via Wikipedia.
+ * @property {number} [aumYear]     OPTIONAL year of the primary-source
+ *                                  AUM disclosure (e.g. 2024).
+ * @property {boolean} [aumVerified] OPTIONAL primary-source-confirmed flag.
+ *                                  When false, the entry is loaded for
+ *                                  documentation but EXCLUDED from buffer
+ *                                  scoring (data-integrity rule).
  * @property {SwfClassification} classification
- * @property {{ access: string, liquidity: string, transparency: string }} rationale
+ * @property {{ access: string, liquidity: string, transparency: string,
+ *              [aum_pct_of_audited]: string,
+ *              [excluded_overlaps_with_reserves]: string }} rationale
  * @property {string[]} sources
  */
 
@@ -93,7 +122,35 @@ function validateClassification(cls, path) {
   assertZeroToOne(c.access,       `${path}.access`);
   assertZeroToOne(c.liquidity,    `${path}.liquidity`);
   assertZeroToOne(c.transparency, `${path}.transparency`);
-  return { access: c.access, liquidity: c.liquidity, transparency: c.transparency };
+
+  // OPTIONAL: aum_pct_of_audited multiplier (KIA-GRF/FGF split case).
+  let aumPctOfAudited;
+  if (c.aum_pct_of_audited != null) {
+    if (typeof c.aum_pct_of_audited !== 'number'
+        || Number.isNaN(c.aum_pct_of_audited)
+        || c.aum_pct_of_audited <= 0
+        || c.aum_pct_of_audited > 1) {
+      fail(`${path}.aum_pct_of_audited: expected number in (0, 1], got ${JSON.stringify(c.aum_pct_of_audited)}`);
+    }
+    aumPctOfAudited = c.aum_pct_of_audited;
+  }
+
+  // OPTIONAL: excluded_overlaps_with_reserves flag (SAFE-IC / HKMA case).
+  let excludedOverlapsWithReserves;
+  if (c.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves != null) {
+    if (typeof c.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves !== 'boolean') {
+      fail(`${path}.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: expected boolean, got ${JSON.stringify(c.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves)}`);
+    }
+    excludedOverlapsWithReserves = c.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves;
+  }
+
+  return {
+    access: c.access,
+    liquidity: c.liquidity,
+    transparency: c.transparency,
+    ...(aumPctOfAudited != null ? { aumPctOfAudited } : {}),
+    ...(excludedOverlapsWithReserves != null ? { excludedOverlapsWithReserves } : {}),
+  };
 }
 
 function validateRationale(rat, path) {
@@ -102,7 +159,19 @@ function validateRationale(rat, path) {
   assertNonEmptyString(r.access,       `${path}.access`);
   assertNonEmptyString(r.liquidity,    `${path}.liquidity`);
   assertNonEmptyString(r.transparency, `${path}.transparency`);
-  return { access: r.access, liquidity: r.liquidity, transparency: r.transparency };
+  // Optional rationale paragraphs for the new schema fields. Required
+  // ONLY when the corresponding classification field is present (paired
+  // with a rationale in validateFundEntry).
+  const out = { access: r.access, liquidity: r.liquidity, transparency: r.transparency };
+  if (r.aum_pct_of_audited != null) {
+    assertNonEmptyString(r.aum_pct_of_audited, `${path}.aum_pct_of_audited`);
+    out.aumPctOfAudited = r.aum_pct_of_audited;
+  }
+  if (r.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves != null) {
+    assertNonEmptyString(r.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves, `${path}.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves`);
+    out.excludedOverlapsWithReserves = r.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves;
+  }
+  return out;
 }
 
 function validateSources(sources, path) {
@@ -154,6 +223,19 @@ function validateFundEntry(raw, idx, seenFundKeys) {
   if (!raw || typeof raw !== 'object') fail(`${path}: expected object`);
   const f = /** @type {Record<string, unknown>} */ (raw);
 
+  // Misplacement gate. `aum_pct_of_audited` and
+  // `excluded_overlaps_with_reserves` are CLASSIFICATION fields.
+  // If they appear at the top level of a fund entry, the loader
+  // rejects with a clear error rather than silently accepting the
+  // misplaced field (which would be ignored by the schema and
+  // produce wrong scoring). Codex Round 1 #4.
+  if (f.aum_pct_of_audited !== undefined) {
+    fail(`${path}: aum_pct_of_audited must be placed under classification:, not top-level`);
+  }
+  if (f.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves !== undefined) {
+    fail(`${path}: excluded_overlaps_with_reserves must be placed under classification:, not top-level`);
+  }
+
   assertIso2(f.country, `${path}.country`);
   assertNonEmptyString(f.fund, `${path}.fund`);
   assertNonEmptyString(f.display_name, `${path}.display_name`);
@@ -162,16 +244,59 @@ function validateFundEntry(raw, idx, seenFundKeys) {
   if (seenFundKeys.has(dedupeKey)) fail(`${path}: duplicate fund identifier ${dedupeKey}`);
   seenFundKeys.add(dedupeKey);
 
+  // OPTIONAL primary-source AUM fields. When `aum_verified === true`
+  // AND `aum_usd` present, the seeder uses these directly without
+  // querying Wikipedia. When `aum_verified === false`, the entry
+  // is loaded for documentation but EXCLUDED from buffer scoring
+  // (data-integrity rule from plan §Phase 1A).
+  let aumUsd;
+  if (f.aum_usd != null) {
+    if (typeof f.aum_usd !== 'number' || !Number.isFinite(f.aum_usd) || f.aum_usd <= 0) {
+      fail(`${path}.aum_usd: expected positive finite number, got ${JSON.stringify(f.aum_usd)}`);
+    }
+    aumUsd = f.aum_usd;
+  }
+  let aumYear;
+  if (f.aum_year != null) {
+    if (typeof f.aum_year !== 'number' || !Number.isInteger(f.aum_year) || f.aum_year < 2000 || f.aum_year > 2100) {
+      fail(`${path}.aum_year: expected integer year in [2000, 2100], got ${JSON.stringify(f.aum_year)}`);
+    }
+    aumYear = f.aum_year;
+  }
+  let aumVerified;
+  if (f.aum_verified != null) {
+    if (typeof f.aum_verified !== 'boolean') {
+      fail(`${path}.aum_verified: expected boolean, got ${JSON.stringify(f.aum_verified)}`);
+    }
+    aumVerified = f.aum_verified;
+  }
+  // Coherence: if aum_verified === true, both aum_usd and aum_year MUST be present.
+  // (A "verified" entry without an actual value is meaningless.)
+  if (aumVerified === true && (aumUsd == null || aumYear == null)) {
+    fail(`${path}: aum_verified=true requires both aum_usd and aum_year to be present`);
+  }
+
   const classification = validateClassification(f.classification, `${path}.classification`);
   const rationale = validateRationale(f.rationale, `${path}.rationale`);
   const sources = validateSources(f.sources, `${path}.sources`);
   const wikipedia = validateWikipediaHints(f.wikipedia, `${path}.wikipedia`);
 
+  // Coherence: rationale MUST cover any classification field that is set.
+  if (classification.aumPctOfAudited != null && rationale.aumPctOfAudited == null) {
+    fail(`${path}.rationale.aum_pct_of_audited: required when classification.aum_pct_of_audited is set`);
+  }
+  if (classification.excludedOverlapsWithReserves === true && rationale.excludedOverlapsWithReserves == null) {
+    fail(`${path}.rationale.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: required when classification.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves is true`);
+  }
+
   return {
     country: f.country,
     fund: f.fund,
     displayName: f.display_name,
     ...(wikipedia ? { wikipedia } : {}),
+    ...(aumUsd != null ? { aumUsd } : {}),
+    ...(aumYear != null ? { aumYear } : {}),
+    ...(aumVerified != null ? { aumVerified } : {}),
     classification,
     rationale,
     sources,
diff --git a/tests/swf-classification-manifest.test.mjs b/tests/swf-classification-manifest.test.mjs
index f0643f7ea..3f696d6f1 100644
--- a/tests/swf-classification-manifest.test.mjs
+++ b/tests/swf-classification-manifest.test.mjs
@@ -33,20 +33,48 @@ describe('SWF classification manifest — shipped YAML', () => {
     );
   });
 
-  it('lists the first-release set of funds from plan §3.4', () => {
+  it('lists the first-release set of funds from plan §3.4 (KIA split per Phase 1B)', () => {
+    // Phase 1B (Plan 2026-04-25-001) split the original `KW:kia` entry
+    // into `KW:kia-grf` and `KW:kia-fgf` to correctly attribute GRF's
+    // 0.9 stabilization access to its ~5% sleeve and FGF's 0.20
+    // statutorily-gated access to the remaining ~95%. Both identifiers
+    // are now required.
     const expected = new Set([
       'NO:gpfg',
       'AE:adia',
       'AE:mubadala',
       'SA:pif',
-      'KW:kia',
+      'KW:kia-grf',
+      'KW:kia-fgf',
       'QA:qia',
       'SG:gic',
       'SG:temasek',
     ]);
     const actual = new Set(manifest.funds.map((f) => `${f.country}:${f.fund}`));
     for (const required of expected) {
-      assert.ok(actual.has(required), `plan §3.4 required fund missing from manifest: ${required}`);
+      assert.ok(actual.has(required), `plan §3.4 + Phase 1B required fund missing from manifest: ${required}`);
+    }
+  });
+
+  it('Phase 1 (Plan 2026-04-25-001) expansion adds 12 new funds across 7 new + extended countries', () => {
+    // Phase 1 expansion: UAE adds ICD/ADQ/EIA (3); KW splits kia → kia-grf+kia-fgf
+    // (1 net since kia is dropped); CN adds CIC/NSSF/SAFE-IC (3); HK adds HKMA-EF
+    // (1); KR adds KIC (1); AU adds Future Fund (1); OM adds OIA (1); BH adds
+    // Mumtalakat (1); TL adds Petroleum Fund (1). Net new identifiers: 12 over
+    // the original 8 + 1 from KIA split. Manifest total ≥ 20.
+    const required = new Set([
+      'AE:icd', 'AE:adq', 'AE:eia',
+      'CN:cic', 'CN:nssf', 'CN:safe-ic',
+      'HK:hkma-ef',
+      'KR:kic',
+      'AU:future-fund',
+      'OM:oia',
+      'BH:mumtalakat',
+      'TL:petroleum-fund',
+    ]);
+    const actual = new Set(manifest.funds.map((f) => `${f.country}:${f.fund}`));
+    for (const r of required) {
+      assert.ok(actual.has(r), `Phase 1 expansion fund missing from manifest: ${r}`);
     }
   });
 
diff --git a/tests/swf-manifest-loader-schema-extension.test.mjs b/tests/swf-manifest-loader-schema-extension.test.mjs
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7269cb30f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/swf-manifest-loader-schema-extension.test.mjs
@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+// Schema-extension tests for swf-manifest-loader.mjs (Phase 1).
+//
+// Pins the new schema fields' canonical placement and rejection rules:
+//   - top-level (per-fund): aum_usd, aum_year, aum_verified
+//   - under classification: aum_pct_of_audited, excluded_overlaps_with_reserves
+//
+// Codex Round 1 #4 mandated a SINGLE canonical placement for each new
+// field, with the loader REJECTING misplacement (positive control)
+// rather than silently accepting it.
+
+import { test } from 'node:test';
+import assert from 'node:assert/strict';
+
+import { validateManifest } from '../scripts/shared/swf-manifest-loader.mjs';
+import {
+  shouldSkipFundForBuffer,
+  applyAumPctOfAudited,
+  buildCoverageSummary,
+} from '../scripts/seed-sovereign-wealth.mjs';
+
+function makeFund(overrides = {}) {
+  return {
+    country: 'AE',
+    fund: 'test-fund',
+    display_name: 'Test Fund',
+    classification: { access: 0.5, liquidity: 0.5, transparency: 0.5 },
+    rationale: { access: 'a', liquidity: 'l', transparency: 't' },
+    sources: ['https://example.com/'],
+    ...overrides,
+  };
+}
+
+function makeManifest(funds) {
+  return {
+    manifest_version: 1,
+    last_reviewed: '2026-04-25',
+    external_review_status: 'REVIEWED',
+    funds,
+  };
+}
+
+test('REJECTS aum_pct_of_audited placed at fund top level (must be under classification)', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({ aum_pct_of_audited: 0.05 }),
+  ]);
+  assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m), /aum_pct_of_audited must be placed under classification/);
+});
+
+test('REJECTS excluded_overlaps_with_reserves placed at fund top level', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({ excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true }),
+  ]);
+  assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m), /excluded_overlaps_with_reserves must be placed under classification/);
+});
+
+test('ACCEPTS aum_pct_of_audited under classification when paired with rationale', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      classification: { access: 0.9, liquidity: 0.8, transparency: 0.4, aum_pct_of_audited: 0.05 },
+      rationale: { access: 'a', liquidity: 'l', transparency: 't', aum_pct_of_audited: 'GRF is ~5% of audited KIA AUM' },
+    }),
+  ]);
+  const out = validateManifest(m);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].classification.aumPctOfAudited, 0.05);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].rationale.aumPctOfAudited, 'GRF is ~5% of audited KIA AUM');
+});
+
+test('REJECTS aum_pct_of_audited under classification WITHOUT a rationale paragraph', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      classification: { access: 0.9, liquidity: 0.8, transparency: 0.4, aum_pct_of_audited: 0.05 },
+      // rationale.aum_pct_of_audited is missing
+    }),
+  ]);
+  assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m),
+    /rationale\.aum_pct_of_audited: required when classification\.aum_pct_of_audited is set/);
+});
+
+test('REJECTS aum_pct_of_audited outside (0, 1] range', () => {
+  // `null` is intentionally NOT in this list — the loader treats null
+  // as "field absent" (the value is optional), which is correct.
+  for (const bad of [0, -0.1, 1.5, 'x', NaN]) {
+    const m = makeManifest([
+      makeFund({
+        classification: { access: 0.9, liquidity: 0.8, transparency: 0.4, aum_pct_of_audited: bad },
+      }),
+    ]);
+    assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m), /aum_pct_of_audited: expected number in \(0, 1\]/);
+  }
+});
+
+test('ACCEPTS excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true with paired rationale', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      classification: { access: 0.5, liquidity: 0.7, transparency: 0.3, excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true },
+      rationale: { access: 'a', liquidity: 'l', transparency: 't', excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: 'SAFE-IC overlaps PBOC reserves' },
+    }),
+  ]);
+  const out = validateManifest(m);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].classification.excludedOverlapsWithReserves, true);
+});
+
+test('REJECTS excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true WITHOUT rationale paragraph', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      classification: { access: 0.5, liquidity: 0.7, transparency: 0.3, excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: true },
+    }),
+  ]);
+  assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m),
+    /rationale\.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: required when classification\.excluded_overlaps_with_reserves is true/);
+});
+
+test('REJECTS excluded_overlaps_with_reserves of non-boolean type', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      classification: { access: 0.5, liquidity: 0.7, transparency: 0.3, excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: 'true' },
+    }),
+  ]);
+  assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m), /excluded_overlaps_with_reserves: expected boolean/);
+});
+
+test('ACCEPTS aum_usd + aum_year + aum_verified=true together', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      aum_usd: 320_000_000_000,
+      aum_year: 2024,
+      aum_verified: true,
+    }),
+  ]);
+  const out = validateManifest(m);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].aumUsd, 320_000_000_000);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].aumYear, 2024);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].aumVerified, true);
+});
+
+test('REJECTS aum_verified: true without aum_usd', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      aum_verified: true,
+      aum_year: 2024,
+    }),
+  ]);
+  assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m),
+    /aum_verified=true requires both aum_usd and aum_year to be present/);
+});
+
+test('REJECTS aum_verified: true without aum_year', () => {
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      aum_verified: true,
+      aum_usd: 100_000_000_000,
+    }),
+  ]);
+  assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m),
+    /aum_verified=true requires both aum_usd and aum_year to be present/);
+});
+
+test('ACCEPTS aum_verified: false (entry loaded for documentation only)', () => {
+  // No aum_usd / aum_year required when verified=false — the entry
+  // documents an unverifiable fund that the seeder will skip from
+  // scoring. This is the EIA / data-integrity-rule path.
+  const m = makeManifest([
+    makeFund({
+      aum_verified: false,
+    }),
+  ]);
+  const out = validateManifest(m);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].aumVerified, false);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].aumUsd, undefined);
+});
+
+test('REJECTS aum_year out of [2000, 2100]', () => {
+  // `null` excluded — treated as field-absent, intentional.
+  for (const bad of [1999, 2101, 0, -1, 'x']) {
+    const m = makeManifest([
+      makeFund({
+        aum_usd: 100_000_000_000,
+        aum_year: bad,
+        aum_verified: true,
+      }),
+    ]);
+    assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m), /aum_year/);
+  }
+});
+
+test('REJECTS aum_usd of non-positive or non-finite type', () => {
+  // `null` excluded — treated as field-absent, intentional.
+  for (const bad of [0, -1, NaN, Infinity, 'big']) {
+    const m = makeManifest([
+      makeFund({
+        aum_usd: bad,
+        aum_year: 2024,
+        aum_verified: true,
+      }),
+    ]);
+    assert.throws(() => validateManifest(m), /aum_usd/);
+  }
+});
+
+test('Backward-compat: existing entries without new fields still validate', () => {
+  // The 8 existing entries on origin/main don't carry aum_usd /
+  // aum_pct / excluded flags. Ensure the schema extension is purely
+  // additive — existing fields produce a clean parse.
+  const m = makeManifest([makeFund()]);
+  const out = validateManifest(m);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].aumUsd, undefined);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].aumVerified, undefined);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].classification.aumPctOfAudited, undefined);
+  assert.equal(out.funds[0].classification.excludedOverlapsWithReserves, undefined);
+});
+
+// ── Seeder-side pure helpers ──────────────────────────────────────
+
+test('shouldSkipFundForBuffer: returns null for a normal fund', () => {
+  const fund = { classification: { access: 0.5 }, aumVerified: true };
+  assert.equal(shouldSkipFundForBuffer(fund), null);
+});
+
+test('shouldSkipFundForBuffer: skips when excluded_overlaps_with_reserves=true', () => {
+  const fund = {
+    classification: { access: 0.5, excludedOverlapsWithReserves: true },
+    aumVerified: true,
+  };
+  assert.equal(shouldSkipFundForBuffer(fund), 'excluded_overlaps_with_reserves');
+});
+
+test('shouldSkipFundForBuffer: skips when aum_verified=false', () => {
+  const fund = {
+    classification: { access: 0.5 },
+    aumVerified: false,
+  };
+  assert.equal(shouldSkipFundForBuffer(fund), 'aum_unverified');
+});
+
+test('shouldSkipFundForBuffer: excluded takes precedence over unverified (single skip reason)', () => {
+  // If a fund is BOTH excluded (overlaps reserves) AND unverified,
+  // we surface the excluded reason because that's the more
+  // architectural concern (double-counting risk).
+  const fund = {
+    classification: { excludedOverlapsWithReserves: true },
+    aumVerified: false,
+  };
+  assert.equal(shouldSkipFundForBuffer(fund), 'excluded_overlaps_with_reserves');
+});
+
+test('shouldSkipFundForBuffer: returns null when neither flag is set', () => {
+  // Backward-compat: existing entries on origin/main don't carry
+  // aumVerified or excludedOverlapsWithReserves. They must NOT skip.
+  assert.equal(shouldSkipFundForBuffer({ classification: { access: 0.5 } }), null);
+});
+
+test('shouldSkipFundForBuffer: handles malformed / null input defensively', () => {
+  assert.equal(shouldSkipFundForBuffer(null), null);
+  assert.equal(shouldSkipFundForBuffer(undefined), null);
+  assert.equal(shouldSkipFundForBuffer({}), null);
+});
+
+test('applyAumPctOfAudited: returns AUM unchanged when no multiplier set', () => {
+  const fund = { classification: { access: 0.5 } };
+  assert.equal(applyAumPctOfAudited(1_000_000_000_000, fund), 1_000_000_000_000);
+});
+
+test('applyAumPctOfAudited: applies the fraction (KIA-GRF case)', () => {
+  // KIA combined audited AUM = $1.072T; GRF is ~5%
+  const fund = { classification: { access: 0.9, aumPctOfAudited: 0.05 } };
+  const out = applyAumPctOfAudited(1_072_000_000_000, fund);
+  assert.equal(out, 53_600_000_000);
+});
+
+test('applyAumPctOfAudited: KIA-GRF + KIA-FGF sum equals combined AUM', () => {
+  // The split must be conservative — sum of fractional parts equals
+  // the original audited AUM. Pinned because a future edit that
+  // changes 5/95 split to e.g. 5/90 would silently drop $50B.
+  const audited = 1_072_000_000_000;
+  const grf = applyAumPctOfAudited(audited, { classification: { aumPctOfAudited: 0.05 } });
+  const fgf = applyAumPctOfAudited(audited, { classification: { aumPctOfAudited: 0.95 } });
+  assert.equal(grf + fgf, audited);
+});
+
+test('applyAumPctOfAudited: ignores out-of-range multipliers (defensive)', () => {
+  // The loader rejects out-of-range values at parse time; this is a
+  // belt-and-suspenders runtime check that doesn't multiply by an
+  // invalid fraction even if the loader's gate is somehow bypassed.
+  for (const bad of [0, -0.1, 1.5, NaN, 'big']) {
+    const fund = { classification: { aumPctOfAudited: bad } };
+    assert.equal(applyAumPctOfAudited(1_000, fund), 1_000);
+  }
+});
+
+// ── buildCoverageSummary regression: completeness denominator ──────
+//
+// User's PR-3391 review caught a P1: completeness used `funds.length`
+// (manifest count) as the denominator, which depresses the ratio for
+// countries whose manifest contains documentation-only entries
+// (excluded_overlaps_with_reserves OR aum_verified=false). The shipped
+// manifest has this state for UAE (EIA unverified) and CN (SAFE-IC
+// excluded). These tests pin the corrected denominator: only scorable
+// funds count toward expected.
+
+test('buildCoverageSummary: country with all scorable funds matched is "complete" even if manifest also has unverified entries', () => {
+  // UAE-shape: 4 scorable (ADIA, Mubadala, ICD, ADQ) + 1 unverified (EIA).
+  // If all 4 scorable matched, country is COMPLETE, not partial.
+  const manifest = {
+    funds: [
+      { country: 'AE', fund: 'adia',    classification: { access: 0.4 } },
+      { country: 'AE', fund: 'mubadala',classification: { access: 0.5 } },
+      { country: 'AE', fund: 'icd',     classification: { access: 0.5 } },
+      { country: 'AE', fund: 'adq',     classification: { access: 0.5 } },
+      { country: 'AE', fund: 'eia',     classification: { access: 0.4 }, aumVerified: false },
+    ],
+  };
+  const imports = { AE: { importsUsd: 481.9e9 } };
+  const countries = {
+    AE: {
+      // expectedFunds is computed PER-COUNTRY in fetchSovereignWealth using
+      // shouldSkipFundForBuffer, so this test fixture mirrors the seeder's
+      // post-fix output (expectedFunds = 4 scorable, completeness = 1.0).
+      matchedFunds: 4,
+      expectedFunds: 4,
+      completeness: 1.0,
+    },
+  };
+  const summary = buildCoverageSummary(manifest, imports, countries);
+  // Only 4 scorable funds in AE; 1 unverified entry doesn't count.
+  assert.equal(summary.expectedFunds, 4,
+    `headline expected funds should exclude documentation-only entries; got ${summary.expectedFunds}`);
+  const aeStatus = summary.countryStatuses.find((s) => s.country === 'AE');
+  assert.equal(aeStatus.status, 'complete');
+});
+
+test('buildCoverageSummary: excludes excluded_overlaps_with_reserves entries from expectedFundsTotal', () => {
+  // CN-shape: CIC + NSSF scorable + SAFE-IC excluded.
+  const manifest = {
+    funds: [
+      { country: 'CN', fund: 'cic',  classification: { access: 0.4 } },
+      { country: 'CN', fund: 'nssf', classification: { access: 0.20 } },
+      { country: 'CN', fund: 'safe-ic', classification: { access: 0.5, excludedOverlapsWithReserves: true } },
+    ],
+  };
+  const imports = { CN: { importsUsd: 3.0e12 } };
+  const countries = {
+    CN: { matchedFunds: 2, expectedFunds: 2, completeness: 1.0 },
+  };
+  const summary = buildCoverageSummary(manifest, imports, countries);
+  assert.equal(summary.expectedFunds, 2,
+    `SAFE-IC should NOT count toward expected funds; got ${summary.expectedFunds}`);
+  const cnStatus = summary.countryStatuses.find((s) => s.country === 'CN');
+  assert.equal(cnStatus.status, 'complete');
+});
+
+test('buildCoverageSummary: missing-country path uses scorable count, not raw manifest count', () => {
+  // Country with mixed scorable + excluded entries that fails to seed
+  // entirely (e.g. WB imports missing). The "expected" figure on the
+  // missing-country status row should reflect SCORABLE funds, not all
+  // manifest entries — otherwise an operator dashboard shows
+  // "0/3 funds" when the truth is "0/2 funds, 1 documentation-only".
+  const manifest = {
+    funds: [
+      { country: 'CN', fund: 'cic',  classification: { access: 0.4 } },
+      { country: 'CN', fund: 'nssf', classification: { access: 0.20 } },
+      { country: 'CN', fund: 'safe-ic', classification: { access: 0.5, excludedOverlapsWithReserves: true } },
+    ],
+  };
+  const imports = {}; // CN imports missing → country not seeded
+  const countries = {}; // no country payload at all
+  const summary = buildCoverageSummary(manifest, imports, countries);
+  const cnStatus = summary.countryStatuses.find((s) => s.country === 'CN');
+  assert.equal(cnStatus.status, 'missing');
+  assert.equal(cnStatus.expected, 2,
+    `missing-country expected should be SCORABLE count (2), not all-manifest (3); got ${cnStatus.expected}`);
+});
+
+test('buildCoverageSummary: country with ONLY documentation-only entries is excluded from expectedCountries', () => {
+  // Edge case: hypothetical country where every manifest entry is
+  // documentation-only (e.g. only EIA-style unverified). Such a
+  // country has 0 scorable funds → should not appear in
+  // expectedCountries because there's nothing scorable to expect.
+  const manifest = {
+    funds: [
+      { country: 'XX', fund: 'placeholder', classification: { access: 0.4 }, aumVerified: false },
+    ],
+  };
+  const summary = buildCoverageSummary(manifest, {}, {});
+  assert.equal(summary.expectedCountries, 0,
+    `XX has zero scorable funds — should not be in expectedCountries`);
+  assert.equal(summary.expectedFunds, 0);
+});