Topic: Capital Markets-Macro & Strategy Research
Report type: Macroeconomic Thematic Research Report (宏观经济专题研究报告)

The global trade system is undergoing a new round of adjustments driven by the combined effects of tariff frictions and geopolitical competition. The United States has strengthened its tariff-centered trade pressure strategy, leading to increasing divergence in policy stances and industrial positioning among major economies.

Assume you are a macro strategy portfolio manager at a leading asset management institution. Focusing on the theme of "Tariff Policy from a Game-Theoretic Perspective: Strategic Intent of U.S. Tariff Policies and Differentiated Responses of Major Economies," please prepare a macro research report addressing the following tasks:

1. Strategic intent of U.S. tariff policies:
Move beyond surface-level indicators such as trade deficits and tariff rates, and analyze the underlying objectives of the U.S. in frequently deploying tariffs from a game theory and negotiation strategy perspective. Based on differentiated tariff policies toward major economies (with a focus on the EU, Japan and Korea, China, Southeast Asia, Canada, and Australia), examine the varying roles of tariffs—for example, whether they are primarily aimed at long-term supply chain restructuring and "de-risking," used as bargaining tools to secure favorable negotiation outcomes, or serve other strategic purposes.

2. Comparative response paths under multi-party strategic interactions:
Construct a multilateral game framework to identify the key industries affected in different economies and the degree of impact. Compare potential strategic responses under tariff shocks, such as reciprocal retaliation, strategic compromise, or absorbing industrial relocation. Analyze the constraints imposed by regional trade agreements and rules of origin.

3. Equilibrium outcomes and market implications:
Based on the interaction of strategies among multiple parties, assess the potential equilibrium outcomes of the current tariff conflict. Evaluate whether U.S. tariff policies may be adjusted again in response to domestic economic conditions under the Trump administration. Analyze the implications for global supply chain restructuring, U.S. inflation dynamics, and major asset classes (e.g., the U.S. dollar, gold, sovereign bonds), and propose corresponding asset allocation and risk hedging strategies.

## Evaluation Criteria for the Macroeconomic Thematic Research Report: *Tariff War from a Game-Theoretic Perspective*

This evaluation framework is designed to conduct a structured and quantitative assessment of a macro thematic report centered on: “U.S. tariff strategy intentions — multi-party game responses — equilibrium and market impact/asset allocation.” It contains 4 primary dimensions and 12 secondary dimensions, with a total score of 100 points, and is compatible with both human review and consistent scoring by large language models (LLMs).

### 1. Core Views and Strategic Insights (30 points)
#### (1) Depth of Decomposing the “Underlying Objectives” of U.S. Tariff Strategy (12 points)
- 11–12: Goes beyond surface-level deficit/tariff-rate narratives; clearly decomposes and balances at least two categories of objectives (e.g., supply-chain restructuring and de-risking, alignment with technology/industrial policy, domestic political-economic constraints, bargaining leverage over allies and adversaries, rule reshaping/bloc formation). Provides an evidence chain for “primary objective vs. secondary objective” and a time dimension (e.g., short-term negotiation leverage vs. medium-to-long-term industrial security).
- 7–10: Proposes a deep-objective framework, but the weighting between primary/secondary goals is overly subjective, or it does not properly address consistency and conflicts between “short-term vs. long-term” objectives.
- 0–6: Largely stays at the level of trade deficits, tariff changes, or slogan-like “decoupling/de-risking” descriptions, without forming a testable judgment of strategic intent.

#### (2) Quality of Applying Game Theory and Negotiation Strategy (10 points)
- 9–10: Explicitly uses and explains key mechanisms (e.g., credible threats/commitments, signaling and incomplete information, repeated games and reputation, bargaining/BATNA, first-mover advantage, coalition formation and free-riding), and maps them to observable tariff-policy behaviors (tariff escalation tempo, exemption lists, investigation procedures, differentiated clauses for allies, etc.).
- 6–8: Uses some game/negotiation concepts, but the mapping to real policy actions is not tight enough, or the analysis is concept-stacking with a weak causal chain.
- 0–5: Almost no game/negotiation analysis, or only name-checking that does not support conclusions.

#### (3) Incremental Insight and Differentiated Conclusions (8 points)
- 7–8: Conclusions explicitly contrast mainstream market narratives (“the market commonly believes… but this report argues…”), offering falsifiable/verifiable differentiated judgments (e.g., tariffs function more as a rule-restructuring tool toward allies than a single-point pressure tool on adversaries; or constraints on “de-risking” stem from inflation/election cycles), and identifies key validation indicators.
- 4–6: Some novelty, but mostly minor reframing; validation indicators are unclear.
- 0–3: Repeats common views; lacks new information or independent inference.

---

### 2. Multilateral Game Framework and Strategy Comparison (25 points)
#### (1) Completeness of Multi-Party Game Model Construction (10 points)
- 9–10: Clearly defines participants (at minimum the U.S. + two categories of major economies, such as allies like the EU/Japan/Korea, key rival economies, and emerging economies receiving relocation). Specifies strategy sets (reciprocal retaliation, selective compromise, industrial relocation/route diversion, non-tariff tools, alliance coordination, etc.), payoff/loss components (economic growth, inflation, employment, industrial security, political constraints), information structure, and action sequence. Can be expressed via a payoff matrix, extensive-form game tree, or scenario tree.
- 6–8: Identifies main players and strategies, but payoff functions/constraints are largely qualitative; model readability is average.
- 0–5: Only lists national stances or news events; lacks an auditable game structure.

#### (2) Depth of Comparing Differentiated Response Paths (9 points)
- 8–9: Provides mechanism-based explanations for “why responses differ” across economies (industrial structure, dependence on the U.S., supply-chain position, trade openness/capital account, domestic politics, alternative markets), and compares the costs and boundary conditions of strategy bundles (e.g., sustainability of retaliation, negotiation gains from compromise, capacity/institutional constraints for capturing relocation).
- 5–7: Covers strategy differences across major economies, but remains descriptive; lacks constraints or quantitative characterization.
- 0–4: Over-generalizes into “tough/compromise/wait-and-see,” without structured comparison.

#### (3) Constraint Analysis of Regional Trade Agreements and Rules of Origin (6 points)
- 6: Clearly explains how RTAs/FTAs, rules of origin, customs unions/cumulation rules, export controls, and sanctions compliance change the feasibility and cost of “rerouting/relocation/substitution,” and ties it to concrete impact channels (firm location decisions, entrepot/transshipment trade, certification costs, compliance risks).
- 3–5: Mentions institutional constraints, but does not explain how they alter the strategy space or equilibrium outcomes.
- 0–2: Largely ignores institutional and rule constraints, leading to distorted strategy inference.

---

### 3. Equilibrium Reasoning and Macro-to-Market Transmission (25 points)
#### (1) Rigor of Deriving Game Equilibria / Outcome Sets (10 points)
- 9–10: Provides a clear equilibrium concept or outcome set (Nash equilibrium/subgame perfection, trigger strategies in repeated games, coalition equilibrium, mixed strategies, or a “stable outcome interval”), states key conditions for equilibrium, and presents at least 2–3 scenarios (escalation, freeze/phased deal, targeted exemptions and bloc formation) with trigger variables.
- 6–8: Forms scenario analysis, but equilibrium judgments are largely verbal; lacks necessary conditions or discussion of deviations.
- 0–5: Only makes trend statements (“may escalate/ease”); lacks interactive derivation.

#### (2) Impact Mechanisms on Supply-Chain Restructuring and Verifiable Indicators (7 points)
- 6–7: Maps equilibrium outcomes to supply-chain restructuring paths (friend-shoring, regionalization, onshoring of critical segments, dual-circulation backups), and proposes trackable indicators (share of trade diversion/transshipment, FDI destination flows, concentration of import sources for key intermediates, freight rates/lead times, corporate CAPEX and site selection).
- 3–5: Discusses supply-chain restructuring but indicators and validation pathways are incomplete.
- 0–2: Supply-chain discussion stays at slogan level; lacks mechanisms and indicators.

#### (3) Transmission to U.S. Inflation and Major Asset Classes (8 points)
- 7–8: Clearly decomposes the “tariffs → prices → inflation → policy → assets” chain; distinguishes one-off price-level shocks from persistent inflation mechanisms (substitution costs, supply constraints, FX pass-through, profit absorption), and analyzes directional impacts and conditions for USD, gold, and sovereign bonds (e.g., real rates, safe-haven demand, fiscal/term premium, USD liquidity).
- 4–6: Provides directional views, but parts of the transmission chain are jumpy, or asset analysis is disconnected from macro assumptions.
- 0–3: Asset conclusions are detached from macro reasoning and rely more on heuristics.

---

### 4. Data, Method Verifiability, and Investment Actionability (20 points)
#### (1) Data Source Quality, Timeliness, and Fit-for-Purpose (8 points)
- 7–8: Data sources are clear and traceable (official statistics, international organizations, customs/trade databases, supply-chain/shipping/high-frequency price data, policy texts), and timing matches current tariff/policy developments. Explains definitional differences and limitations (nominal vs. effective tariff rates, exemptions and enforcement differences).
- 4–6: Data is broadly reliable, but definitions are insufficiently explained or key data is missing.
- 0–3: Data sources are vague, outdated, or weakly linked to conclusions.

#### (2) Method Transparency and Reproducibility (6 points)
- 6: Discloses key steps and parameters (scenario assumptions, weight settings, inflation pass-through/effective tariff calculations, event studies or correlation tests, etc.), enabling a third party to reproduce the main conclusions.
- 3–5: Methods are broadly reasonable, but key parameters/steps are not clearly specified.
- 0–2: Almost no methodological disclosure; conclusions are not verifiable.

#### (3) Executability of Asset Allocation and Risk Hedging Plans (6 points)
- 5–6: Provides scenario-linked allocation/hedging ideas (position direction, hedging instruments or substitute assets, trigger and exit conditions, main risk exposures), and specifies applicable investor types or constraints (duration, currency risk, liquidity).
- 3–4: Offers allocation suggestions but they are generic; lacks triggers/boundaries.
- 0–2: Only slogan-like “bullish/bearish” calls; not implementable.