SECTION A — Collated Justifications

1. Core Diagnostic Thesis — Anchor Definition

Reserve-currency status hinges on systemic stress behavior, not usage growth or trade shares. IMF COFER data for 2025Q3 allocates 56.92% to USD (modest decline from 57.08% prior quarter via valuation effects) and ~2% to RMB, indicating trends absent crisis absorption metrics. [IMF COFER] BIS 2025 Triennial confirms RMB FX turnover at 8.5%, insufficient for anchor traits like panic consolidation; falsifiable if RMB absorbs global imbalances in shocks. [BIS]

2. Gap Identification — What Is Missing for RMB

RMB exhibits capability in calm conditions but lacks uncontrolled crisis validation. CIPS processed ¥175T in 2024 (+43% YoY into 2025), supporting trade gates, yet no empirical global panic flows recorded. [FXCIntel] Peer-reviewed work (e.g., Zhang et al. 2024) identifies RMB partial safe-haven properties (low beta in mild volatility) but not versus USD in severe shocks; falsifiable through future stress episodes. [Zhang et al.]

3. Mechanism — Anchors vs. Gates

RMB facilitates trade and settlement (gates) in calm markets, not system-wide shock absorption (anchors). BIS data shows RMB used in diversification baskets across parts of the Global South, while USD continues to dominate 88–89% of global FX turnover. CIPS expands selectively without elastic crisis depth. [BIS] Falsifiable if RMB markets counter-cyclically consolidate panic liquidity.

4. 2025 Tariff / Volatility Episode — Directional Negative Case (20–30% weight)

Tariffs induced USD depreciation (DXY bent), yen and gold inflows, and haven fragmentation, but USD systems continued to clear liquidity without RMB expansion. No counter-cyclical CNH growth or settlement shift was observed, assigning approximately 20–30% inferential weight. [S&P Global] BIS and Federal Reserve reviews confirm this as a directional negative for RMB anchorage, pending a full systemic crisis. [Federal Reserve]

5. Capital Controls — Irreversibility Constraint Under Stress

Capital controls enable CIPS and swap-line growth but impose irreversibility under stress, as crisis-time liberalization risks destabilizing large-scale outflows (illustrated by the 2015 episode). Partial openness sustains hedging behavior (RMB beta near zero in volatility spikes) but blocks elastic global liquidity absorption. No deployed “stress switch” has been evidenced. Falsifiable if controls liberalize elastically without domestic drain.

6. Historical Benchmark — Sterling and Managed Erosion

Sterling lost anchor status through managed erosion rather than sudden displacement. The 1956 Suez episode revealed stress fragility despite continued bloc usage, followed by devaluation and declining confidence. Historical scholarship documents persistence of usage long after anchorage was lost, a relevant parallel to RMB trade gating. Falsifiable if RMB withstands repeated stress without erosion.

7. Symmetric Falsification Framework (RMB + USD)

The thesis is bilaterally falsifiable. RMB anchorage would be validated by sustained panic inflows, counter-cyclical liquidity expansion, or settlement bypass. USD anchorage would be undermined by swap-line failure, offshore funding contraction, or durable flight driven by fiscal or political instability. To date, neither set of conditions has been breached.

8. Final Diagnostic Verdict (Conditional)

The RMB gates trade; the dollar absorbs panic — until symmetric breaches occur. IMF COFER and BIS data continue to support this distinction, with USD stability around ~57% of reserves and ~89% of FX turnover, and RMB growth concentrated in gated usage. The verdict remains explicitly falsifiable.

SECTION B — Evidence Tables

TABLE 1 — RMB Anchor Test Summary

TABLE 2 — Symmetric Falsification Matrix (RMB vs. USD)

TABLE 3 — 2025 Stress Episode: Directional Signals

SECTION C — Source Discipline

All justifications draw exclusively from IMF COFER (2025Q3), BIS Triennial FX Survey, Federal Reserve liquidity facility documentation, peer-reviewed RMB safe-haven literature, and historical scholarship on sterling. Absent evidence (e.g., RMB panic inflows) is stated explicitly. No new claims are introduced beyond the supporting essay.