A Nonlinear Scenario Engine Shows How a Hormuz Closure Could Pin U.S. Inflation Above 4.8% Through Late 2026

New framework converts narrative oil-shock scenarios into full probability distributions for inflation. Hormuz closure pushes PCE to ~4.8%, households expect +3pp, and the 2% target stays out of reach for two years.

Imagine you run a restaurant kitchen with a single supplier for your most important ingredient. You can estimate how many covers you'll serve tonight using a simple forecast — but if that supplier suddenly vanishes, your linear model of "yesterday plus a bit" is useless. What you actually need is a way to say: "If the truck doesn't come, here's the probability I run out of chicken by 8pm, and here's how that cascades into menu prices, wait times, and whether regulars come back next week." That's what Baumeister, Clark, and Huber have built for the oil market and the U.S. inflation pipeline. The committed claim: central banks currently run alternative scenarios through linear models that cannot assign meaningful probabilities to tail events. This paper builds a nonlinear, modular pipeline — expert narrative for the trigger event, nonparametric model for global oil dynamics, nonlinear Phillips curves for energy, food, and core PCE components — that transforms a specific geopolitical scenario into a full density forecast for oil prices, gasoline prices, headline inflation, and household expectations. The scenario tested: closure of the Strait of Hormuz modeled as rapid drawdown of global petroleum inventories, using only information available in February 2026. The results are sobering but precise. Once petroleum inventories hit bottom, oil and gasoline prices spike sharply with risks skewed to the upside — meaning the median outcome is bad and the tail is worse. Headline PCE inflation peaks near 4.8% in late 2026. Household inflation expectations rise by roughly 3 percentage points. Two years out, inflation remains highly likely to exceed the Fed's 2% target. These aren't point forecasts — they're probability distributions, which is the whole point. A linear VAR would give you one number; this gives you the shape of the risk. Architecturally, the framework is a three-stage pipeline. Stage one is expert-specified: a narrative path for the tail event (Hormuz closure → inventory drawdown). Stage two is a nonparametric model of the global oil market that translates the inventory path into oil and gasoline price distributions. Stage three feeds those price paths through nonlinear Phillips curves — separately for energy, food, and core PCE — to produce inflation and expectations forecasts. The nonlinearity matters because the relationship between oil shocks and inflation is asymmetric: big shocks don't just scale linearly from small ones, they activate different transmission channels. The ladder question is interesting. The baseline here isn't another inflation model — it's the standard central bank practice of running scenarios through linear models (typically Bayesian VARs). The authors don't claim to beat a specific named model on a specific metric; they claim to provide a qualitatively different output: probability distributions for tail scenarios that linear models structurally cannot produce. This is less "we beat SOTA by 2%" and more "we built a tool that does something the existing tool cannot do at all." The validation is necessarily simulation-based — you can't run a controlled experiment on the Strait of Hormuz — but the real-time design (February 2026 information set only) adds discipline. Integrity is reasonable for this class of work. The scenario is specified ex ante (Hormuz closure, inventory drawdown), not reverse-engineered from a known outcome. The modular design means each stage is separately inspectable. But the validation is inherently circular in one sense: the nonparametric oil model and the nonlinear Phillips curves are estimated on historical data, and the tail scenario is, by definition, outside the historical distribution. The authors are honest about this — the entire point is that you need nonlinear models to speak to tails — but there's no independent physical experiment to check against. The real test comes if a comparable shock actually occurs. The successor question is revealing. The obvious next experiment is applying this framework to a different tail scenario — say, a sudden Saudi production cut or a major pipeline disruption — to see whether the machinery is genuinely general-purpose or tuned to this specific narrative. The authors likely didn't run this because the paper is already dense and the Hormuz scenario is the most policy-relevant one right now. A second obvious extension is feeding the output distributions into a monetary policy reaction function to ask: what should the Fed do differently if it had these density forecasts? That's almost certainly the next paper.