Origins & Evolution

This page explains how the Freeze–Vote–Rebuild concept evolved across drafts and audiences, and how those inputs are organized inside this GitBook. It is written for readers who want provenance and traceability, not for first-time users.

---

The Originating Idea

Freeze–Vote–Rebuild began as a response to a recurring failure pattern in international peace proposals:

• Trying to solve final-status issues while active combat continues.
• Relying on trust-based commitments that collapse under blame and propaganda.
• Treating reconstruction as a vague promise rather than an engineered program.

The framework’s core move is to separate the problem into three sequenced phases:

1. Freeze violence under verifiable conditions.
2. Vote through a supervised legitimacy process.
3. Rebuild through transparent, performance-driven delivery.

---

How the Concept Evolved

Across various drafts, the evolution of the framework followed this strategic arc:

1. From Narrative Concept to Verification-First Architecture

Early framing emphasized the three-phase logic. Later drafts strengthened:

• Monitoring & Incident Classification: Moving from "ceasefire" to "S1–S4 graded violations."
• Gating Logic: Implementing explicit "gates" for advancement and "triggers" for rollback.
• Data Governance: Ensuring all compliance data is auditable and transparent.

2. From "Peace Proposal" to Operational Framework

As the concept matured, implementation-focused versions added:

• Day-One Readiness: Actionable checklists for monitors and administrators.
• Domestic Approvals Gating: Recognizing that legal authority is a prerequisite for commitment.
• Modular Drafting: Placing technical details in annexes to keep the core treaty stable.

3. From Mechanism to Audience-Specific Framing

Specific variants were developed for different stakeholders:

• US Realist Framing: Focused on the "off-ramp" and maintaining strategic leverage.
• Diplomatic/Moral Framing: Including variants such as the French-language "Projet du Pape François."

These are preserved as standalone essays rather than merged into the neutral technical core.

---

The Inputs and Where They Live Now

Core Mechanism (Canonical)

The reconciled, technical mainline of the framework:

• Freeze Phase
• Vote Phase
• Rebuild Phase
• Governance & Gates
• Legal & Political Pathways

Variants and Persuasion (Non-Canonical)

• Background & Essays

Traceability and Decisions

• Decision Log: The "Why" behind design choices.
• Source Archive: The original drafts for reference.
• Deltas Between Versions: Mapping how specific drafts were synthesized.

---

Editorial Policy: Managing Evolution

To maintain the integrity of the framework, we follow these rules:

1. Maintain a "Mainline": The core chapters represent the most robust technical design.
2. Preserve Differences: Divergent design ideas are kept as "options" within core chapters or as audience-specific essays.
3. Document Changes: Any change that alters the behavior of a gate or a commitment must be recorded in the Decision Log.

---

Drafting Note

When this GitBook is finalized, this page should include a short timeline of draft versions/dates and a “What Changed and Why” summary for major revisions.