The spending analysis reveals a central trade-off in endowment policy design. Portfolio C's Hybrid policy — blending a 70% CPI-linked baseline with a 30% market value component — delivers the lowest spending volatility (8.08%) and the lowest average spending drawdown (19.04%), despite Portfolio C carrying the highest asset-level risk. This is the Hybrid policy's structural advantage: the CPI-anchored baseline maintains grantmaking continuity during market downturns. Portfolio A's Simple Market Value policy — while generating the highest negative spend year frequency (45.38%) — also provides the most direct link between portfolio performance and spending, ensuring distributions contract quickly in bear markets to preserve long-term purchasing power. Portfolio B's Rolling Average policy occupies an intermediate position but generates the highest total cumulative spending ($303.0M invested in mission over the decade — $12.4M more than the 60/40). Foundations prioritizing grantee predictability should examine Portfolio C's Hybrid approach; those maximizing total mission deployment should consider Portfolio B; those concerned primarily with long-term corpus preservation may prefer the discipline of Portfolio A's market-linked rule.

The risk analysis reveals a clear risk-return gradient. Portfolio C carries the most severe tail risk — a 15.6% probability of losing 30% or more of purchasing power over the decade, meaning in roughly 1 in 6 market environments, the foundation would experience severe capital impairment. For a foundation with committed multi-year grant obligations, this tail risk may be unacceptable despite the higher expected return. Portfolio A's 13.1% probability of a 30% loss represents a more conservative risk posture. The Sortino ratios — 0.20, 0.31, and 0.35 respectively — indicate that Portfolio C most efficiently compensates for its downside risk, but the absolute magnitude of that downside (21.09% max drawdown) may exceed what many investment committees are willing to accept.