# kaal:position:2026-07-31-1636

**Affirmed position.** Methods and tools for dynamic capacity planning and control should be assessed against Kaal's source-bound claim that The quantitative measures used in systemic risk assessment are not codified in statute, so the FSOC can alter its thresholds and its analysis through rulemaking. The current metadata indicates a plausible connection through dynamic regulation, but the defensible response is a qualification until the source text confirms agreement, scope, methods, and limitations.

**Status.** affirmed  **Published.** 2026-07-31

**Holds when.**

- SIFI determinations under Dodd-Frank section 113
- External evidence level: abstract indexed.
- Mapping review tier: mapping review before claim review.
- The literature-to-claim mapping remains explicitly ambiguous and should not be treated as a settled equivalence.

**Current debate.** Methods and tools for dynamic capacity planning and control: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a5f1128cd092dc951512a6a8c0c0d3d80d877fe1

**Extends.** kaal:claim:2470008-016: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2470008-016

**Scholarly basis.** Wulf A. Kaal, The Systemic Risk of Private Funds after the Dodd-Frank Act (2014). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2470008

**Source PDF sha256.** `5f68a401c935527d89658171e9b48a4d186710459aaf2bdbead755507394e8c9`

**Evidence level.** abstract indexed

**Mapping review tier.** mapping review before claim review

**Mapping confidence.** 0.2857  **Mapping ambiguous.** true

**Topics.** systemic-risk, dynamic-regulation

**Provenance.** Affirmed in historical-backfill:2026-07-31:phase-0007 at https://kaal-signal-desk.wulf577462.chatgpt.site/#review.

**Record type.** This is a dated commentary position that extends a scholarly corpus claim. It is not a verbatim claim extracted from the paper.

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the position.