Deltas Between Versions
This GitBook consolidates several drafts/variants of the Freeze–Vote–Rebuild (FVR) concept into one maintainable, reviewable structure. This page explains how they differ, what is considered “mainline” in the book, and where variant material is preserved.
Why This Page Exists
The source materials differ in:
- Audience (operators vs policymakers vs persuasion),
- Level of detail (high-level concept vs implementable steps),
- Tone and framing (neutral mechanism design vs advocacy narrative),
- Governance/legal specifics (some drafts propose particular institutions; others stay option-based).
To keep the GitBook coherent, this book:
- maintains a single core narrative (Freeze → Vote → Rebuild),
- treats certain elements as options rather than commitments,
- preserves variant text in Background and Essays and Appendices.
A. “Comprehensive Proposal” (Neutral, Verification-First)
- What it is: The broadest statement of the concept.
- Strengths: Readable end-to-end narrative; big-picture architecture; clear three-phase framing.
- Typical gaps: Fewer implementation checklists; less explicit on institutional/legal gating; details sometimes presented conceptually rather than operationally.
B. “v4 — Operational Peace Framework”
- What it is: An implementation-leaning variant intended to be actionable.
- Strengths: Sequencing discipline; “immediate actions”; clearer governance/approval logic; more concrete operational components.
- Typical gaps: May over-specify institutions; may read like a memo rather than a public explainer.
C. “McCormick-Style Off-Ramp” Essay (US Realist Framing)
- What it is: Persuasion-first narrative aimed at an American realism audience.
- Strengths: Strong argumentation and political framing; useful for stakeholder buy-in.
- Typical gaps: Not a spec; fewer auditable details; may simplify operational constraints.
D. “Projet du Pape François…” (French Variant/Origin Framing)
- What it is: An alternate framing that emphasizes a particular moral/diplomatic posture.
- Strengths: Distinctive narrative and “why” framing; helpful for historical/ideological provenance.
- Typical gaps: Contains rhetorical or institutional proposals that may not be feasible or universally acceptable; not written as a neutral operational design.
What is “Canonical” in This GitBook?
Canonical means: “the maintained, reconciled version used for review and iteration.”
Canonical content lives in:
Non-canonical (preserved as context) lives in:
Delta Summary by Theme
1. Sequencing and “Gates”
- Comprehensive: Presents sequencing clearly, but tends to describe gates at a conceptual level.
- v4 Operational: Emphasizes gating, domestic approvals, and step-by-step execution.
- Essays/Variants: Emphasize the “why” more than operational gating.
- GitBook Approach: Keep gating as a core concept, with measurable criteria in Verification Gates.
2. Monitoring/Stabilization Design (Freeze)
- Comprehensive: Stresses monitoring, incident grading, dashboards, humanitarian protections.
- v4 Operational: More specific on mechanisms and immediate setup actions.
- McCormick-Style: Often uses concrete imagery (buffering, sensors/OSCE-style monitoring) as persuasion.
- French Variant: May propose distinctive institutional concepts and rhetoric.
- GitBook Approach: Define a neutral monitoring “menu of options,” then standardize what must be true regardless of option (reporting, access, independence).
3. Voting Integrity and Inclusion (Vote)
- Comprehensive: Strong emphasis on including displaced people; legitimacy framing.
- v4 Operational: Tends to specify publish-and-lock mechanics (rules, algorithm versioning, pre-release simulation).
- McCormick-Style: Highlights auditable digital mechanisms in a simplified way.
- French Variant: Framing differs; details may not align with neutral spec language.
- GitBook Approach: Treat “vote-to-border” and simulations as optional modules, with strict integrity requirements.
4. Reconstruction Governance (Rebuild)
- Comprehensive: Introduces reconstruction acceleration ideas and transparency imperatives.
- v4 Operational: Tends to formalize governance proposals (institutions, patronage structures, named models).
- Essays/Variants: Use reconstruction as legitimacy and “peace dividend” argument.
- GitBook Approach: Keep “Reconstruction Olympics” as a delivery model, but present governance structures as configurable (with pros/cons).
5. Legal/Justice Framing
- v4 Operational: More explicit on domestic approvals and legal pathway structuring.
- Comprehensive: Generally keeps the justice topic framed as constraints and tradeoffs.
- Essays/Variants: May adopt stronger rhetorical lines that are not implementation-ready.
- GitBook Approach: Place legal pathways in Legal Overview with clearly labeled options and constraints; avoid implying guaranteed legal outcomes.
How Conflicts Are Resolved (Editorial Rules)
When drafts disagree or a detail is overspecified:
- Prefer mechanism requirements over named institutions.
- If multiple plausible designs exist, present them as Options A/B/C with tradeoffs.
- Keep persuasion language out of the core chapters; place it in Background.
- Anything that changes the mechanism’s commitments must be recorded in the Decision Log.
Traceability: Where to Find the Originals
- Reference-only originals are listed in: Source Archive
- Major reconciliation choices are recorded in: Decision Log
- The current maintained logic is in:
Suggested “Source Note” Convention (Optional)
While drafting, add a short footer block on pages that heavily draw from one input:
Source Note: Derived primarily from [Operational v4] with supporting concepts from [Comprehensive] and narrative framing from [McCormick-style]. (Keep these notes short; the source archive is the canonical record).
