Failure Modes

This chapter lists the most important ways Freeze–Vote–Rebuild can fail, grouped by phase and by cross-cutting system. Each failure mode is linked to mitigations, owners, and gates in the risk register.

---

Phase-Specific Failure Modes

Freeze Failure Modes

• FM-F1: “Freeze as cover for regrouping”
  • The Risk: Ceasefire reduces active fighting but enables repositioning, rearmament, or fortification.
  • Mitigations: Explicit movement and posture rules; monitoring focused on redeployments; gate thresholds that track patterns of behavior rather than just incident counts.
• FM-F2: Monitor obstruction and intimidation
  • The Risk: Access is denied or monitors are threatened, making verification "theater."
  • Mitigations: Obstruction treated as a high-severity incident; automatic gate-failure consequences; redundant technical/satellite verification.
• FM-F3: Ambiguity-driven escalation
  • The Risk: Vague terms lead to accidental clashes and retaliatory cycles.
  • Mitigations: Enumerated list of prohibited/permitted actions; standardized incident rubric with confidence levels; time-bounded adjudication.
• FM-F4: Humanitarian corridors become political hostages
  • The Risk: Corridors are closed or used coercively to extract political concessions.
  • Mitigations: Corridor uptime metrics; automatic review triggers for closures; explicit prohibition of coercive use in the core treaty.

---

Vote Failure Modes

• FM-V1: Coercion and intimidation distort participation
  • The Risk: Voters or officials face threats, making the outcome illegitimate.
  • Mitigations: Anti-coercion package (hotlines, physical protections, observer access); defined triggers for re-runs/invalidations.
• FM-V2: Displaced people excluded (De facto electorate manipulation)
  • The Risk: Eligibility rules or logistics prevent refugees/IDPs from participating, skewing the result.
  • Mitigations: Explicit displaced categories; proof ladders for missing documents; published aggregate participation metrics.
• FM-V3: Digital/cyber compromise
  • The Risk: Registration or tabulation systems are attacked or lose public trust.
  • Mitigations: Audit-first design with independent paper trails; offline fallbacks; independent security testing.
• FM-V4: Post-result contestation without closure
  • The Risk: Disputes drag on indefinitely, preventing the Rebuild phase and triggering new violence.
  • Mitigations: Strict timelines for appeals; enforceable remedies; fixed certification deadlines.
• FM-V5: Vote-to-border gaming (if used)
  • The Risk: Rule design creates incentives to manipulate turnout or unit boundaries.
  • Mitigations: Pre-published, version-locked algorithms; public "sandbox" simulations; stable mapping units.

---

Rebuild Failure Modes

• FM-R1: Corruption/capture collapses legitimacy
  • The Risk: Funds diverted; procurement politicized; donor confidence collapses.
  • Mitigations: Independent audits; debarment authority; the "Transparency Stack"; tranche releases tied to integrity KPIs.
• FM-R2: Slow delivery undermines the “peace dividend”
  • The Risk: Reconstruction is too slow to stabilize lives, leading to a return to radicalization.
  • Mitigations: Standardized project templates; performance incentives (Reconstruction Olympics); active bottleneck management.
• FM-R3: Unequal distribution fuels grievance
  • The Risk: Perceived regional favoritism or neglect triggers political backlash.
  • Mitigations: Published prioritization criteria; geographic equity monitoring in public dashboards.

---

Cross-Cutting Failure Modes

• FM-X1: Incentives not credible (Domestic legal limits)
  • The Risk: Promised sanctions relief or funding cannot be delivered due to legislative/court blocks.
  • Mitigations: Domestic Approvals Gate; staged incentives with clear legal prerequisites; managing expectations via legal feasibility mapping.
• FM-X2: Governance capture or paralysis
  • The Risk: Decision bodies are captured by one party or perpetually deadlocked.
  • Mitigations: Balanced membership; rotating terms; deadlock-breaking rules (fallback arbitration).
• FM-X3: Data governance failures
  • The Risk: Privacy breaches endanger people (e.g., voter lists leaking) and discredit the process.
  • Mitigations: Role-based access; data minimization; secure "audit rooms" for raw data.
• FM-X4: Spoilers escalate violence to collapse the process
  • The Risk: Internal or external actors sabotage gates to prevent peace.
  • Mitigations: Resilience through redundancy; predictable escalation ladders; public reporting to counter narrative manipulation.

---

Next

Translate these failure modes into a structured table with owners and triggers:

• Risk Register