CMP evidence and development history

SPRFMO

South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
Jack Mackerel Candidate Management Procedures
Current jmMSE Evidence and SCW17 Development History

This page summarizes the available evidence; it does not record an adoption decision. The current candidate interpretation comes from jmMSE, while the SCW17 papers describe earlier development.

1 Current candidate evidence from jmMSE

The current jmMSE analysis provides three reasons for carrying MP29 and MP32 forward:

  1. The tuning analysis defines MP29 and MP32 using the same five observed indices, minimum catch, limit, and annual catch-change limits.
  2. The 25 July 2026 presentation identifies MP29 as the optimal hockeystick run, MP32 as the optimal powerramp run, and MP29 as a potentially good candidate after their direct trade-off comparison.
  3. The robustness analysis selects both procedures for testing across the alternative operating models.

The presentation also reports 500-iteration versions, MP41 and MP42, with slightly different retuned triggers. These test whether the number of simulation replicates affects the results; they are not treated as new CMPs.

Before the results support a formal selection decision, they should be repeatable from saved inputs and linked to saved output files that will not be changed.

2 Paper-08 subset screen

SCW17/Paper-08 documented a repeatable subset test of an empirical index procedure using Chile_CPUE and Offshore_CPUE, cpues.ind with a mean combination, and buffer.hcr. A structured sample of 12 parameter combinations varied the limit and lower and upper buffer values.

The paper reported that the subset spanned a wide range of Kobe-green performance and that higher green probability could coincide with lower catch over the tuning window. It explicitly cautioned that this subset was not the intended full parameter screen. That qualification is retained here.

Evidence still needed before promotion:

  • saved run results and the table of tested parameter combinations;
  • confirmation against the merged jmMSE implementation;
  • evaluation across the agreed reference and robustness OMs;
  • the complete agreed performance-metric set;
  • checks for model convergence, failed runs, and repeatability; and
  • a recorded working-group interpretation of trade-offs.

3 Paper-09 hockeystick test set

SCW17/Paper-09 converted workshop proposals into a structured set of index-based hockeystick tests. It established several useful implementation controls:

  • use exact jmMSE index names;
  • define all candidates in one table rather than changing each rule by hand;
  • stop when required indices are unavailable rather than substituting silently;
  • distinguish tests based on a mean index from tests using loess smoothing; and
  • retain unavailable tests as unavailable until their methods exist.

Those rows remain historical test proposals. They no longer seed the primary CMP registry, which is based on the current jmMSE code.

4 Evidence promotion checklist

Check Required before shortlist Required before adoption
Exact CMP specification Yes Yes
Reproducible reference-OM runs Yes Yes
Agreed robustness set Planned or complete Complete
Full performance metrics Yes Yes
Failure and warning audit Yes Yes
Frozen worked example Desirable Yes
Independent implementation review Desirable Yes
Formal decision record Yes Yes