{"focus":"How current U.S.-anchored and PRC-centered strategies select, deliver, combine, and adapt the four instruments for declared objectives","intent":"Evaluate strategic coherence, implementation, cross-instrument interaction, response, outcome, cost, durability, and adaptation","question":"Given a predeclared objective, target or recipient, geography, time window, counterfactual, acceptable cost, and persistence threshold, how coherently and effectively did the system combine its available instruments, and what explains the observed result?","unit":"A bounded national strategy, strategic objective, campaign, or phase","prohibited_inference":"A strategy-document claim, simultaneous activity, domain position, or capability inventory cannot establish integration or strategic success.","cases":[{"case_id":"IS-C01","title":"U.S. and European response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine","overall_ruling":"partially_effective_not_terminated","objective_result":"The coalition preserved Ukrainian state and military resistance and imposed costs, but did not terminate the war or remove binding delivery and political-continuity constraints.","mechanism_findings":["Permissioned coalition aggregation worked","Industrial and replenishment conversion remained binding","Outcome persistence depends on policy continuity and Ukrainian agency"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P01","IS-P03","IS-P04","IS-P05","IS-P06","IS-P10","IS-P11","IS-P12","IS-P13","IS-P14"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO001","IS-AO002","IS-AO003"],"source_ids":["IS-AS001","IS-AS002","IS-AS003"],"confidence":"moderate","revision_triggers":["Durable settlement","Major coalition withdrawal","Measured production reaches or misses stated requirements"]},{"case_id":"IS-C02","title":"NATO and partner engagement in Afghanistan","overall_ruling":"strategy_failure","objective_result":"The effort did not produce a self-sustaining Afghan state and security system; changing objectives, unrealistic timelines, partner exclusion and externally dependent force design failed the persistence test.","mechanism_findings":["Ends, ways and means drifted","Diplomatic bargaining undercut the partner government","Defense design and economic support did not survive withdrawal"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P12","IS-P13","IS-P14"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO004","IS-AO005","IS-AO006"],"source_ids":["IS-AS004","IS-AS005"],"confidence":"high","revision_triggers":["Material contrary evidence on sustainability or negotiated transition"]},{"case_id":"IS-C03","title":"Advanced-semiconductor controls and allied technology coordination","overall_ruling":"bounded_denial_partial","objective_result":"Controls created friction and delay at selected frontier nodes; permanent denial, military outcome and PRC policy compliance are not established.","mechanism_findings":["Small allied chokepoint coalition achieved coverage","Target adaptation forced repeated rule changes","Ecosystem revenue, partner alignment and substitution bound durability"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P01","IS-P05","IS-P06","IS-P09","IS-P12"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO007","IS-AO008","IS-AO009"],"source_ids":["IS-AS008","IS-AS009"],"confidence":"moderate","revision_triggers":["Equivalent PRC frontier production","Measured military delay","Partner rule divergence or strengthened common coverage"]},{"case_id":"IS-C04","title":"Europe's exit from Russian gas dependence","overall_ruling":"effective_with_high_cost","objective_result":"Europe replaced most Russian pipeline dependence, preserved strategic freedom and institutionalized phaseout, while absorbing significant price and distributional cost.","mechanism_findings":["Diplomacy, regulation, infrastructure, markets and public demand reduction combined","Alternative supply and partner coordination restored options","Sender coercion accelerated loss of its own network position"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P10"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO010","IS-AO011","IS-AO012"],"source_ids":["IS-AS010","IS-AS011"],"confidence":"high","revision_triggers":["Renewed structural dependence","Phaseout reversal","Evidence that strategic freedom was materially lost despite substitution"]},{"case_id":"IS-C05","title":"U.S.-Philippines alliance and EDCA access conversion","overall_ruling":"access_option_effective_permissioned","objective_result":"The strategy converted assurance, diplomacy and funding into distributed prepared access and cooperation; wartime activation and deterrence remain untested.","mechanism_findings":["Threat alignment increased host demand","Local permission and investment made agreement operational","Sovereign caveats remain part of capability"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P01","IS-P02","IS-P03","IS-P04","IS-P09","IS-P11"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO013","IS-AO014","IS-AO015"],"source_ids":["IS-AS012","IS-AS013"],"confidence":"high_for_access_low_for_deterrence","revision_triggers":["Mission-specific authorization or refusal","Host government policy reversal","Measured throughput and survivability"]},{"case_id":"IS-C06","title":"Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS","overall_ruling":"bounded_objective_effective_persistence_incomplete","objective_result":"The coalition achieved territorial defeat through local partners and cross-instrument coordination; enduring defeat of the organization and ideology remains incomplete.","mechanism_findings":["Military, intelligence, finance and diplomacy reinforced one another","Local partner forces were decisive","Transition and detention risks limit persistence"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P12","IS-P13"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO016","IS-AO017","IS-AO018"],"source_ids":["IS-AS006","IS-AS007"],"confidence":"high_for_territorial_outcome","revision_triggers":["Sustained ISIS territorial return","Partner transition failure","Independent attribution of coalition lines"]},{"case_id":"IS-C07","title":"JCPOA bargaining, implementation, withdrawal, and durability","overall_ruling":"initial_success_reversed_into_failure","objective_result":"Negotiation produced verified limits and reciprocal implementation; unilateral withdrawal destroyed persistence and renewed pressure did not restore the bargain.","mechanism_findings":["Economic pressure needed a diplomatic off-ramp","Verification made compliance observable","Policy reversal created cross-instrument fratricide and credibility cost"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P05","IS-P06","IS-P12","IS-P13","IS-P14"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO019","IS-AO020","IS-AO021"],"source_ids":["IS-AS014","IS-AS015","IS-AS016","IS-AS017"],"confidence":"high","revision_triggers":["Restored verified limits","Evidence that reimposition produced a superior durable outcome"]},{"case_id":"IS-C08","title":"FOCAC action-plan and PRC development-finance conversion in Africa","overall_ruling":"coherent_design_delivery_and_influence_unresolved","objective_result":"FOCAC displays broad policy-message coherence and exceptional means, but the current action plan is prospective and recipient-level conversion varies too much for an overall effectiveness call.","mechanism_findings":["Finance, infrastructure, security, governance and information are formally integrated","Provision scale is a real source of agenda access","Recipient agency and delivered performance prevent automatic influence"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P04","IS-P07","IS-P08"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO022","IS-AO023","IS-AO024"],"source_ids":["IS-AS018","IS-AS019","IS-AS040"],"confidence":"moderate_for_design_low_for_outcomes","revision_triggers":["Audited 2025–2027 delivery","Recipient policy or access decisions causally linked to programs","Large cancellation or backlash wave"]},{"case_id":"IS-C09","title":"World Bank and AIIB pandemic response and project delivery","overall_ruling":"both_delivered_no_zero_sum_influence_call","objective_result":"Both institutions rapidly converted capital and relationships into crisis operations; World Bank scale was much larger, while AIIB demonstrated credible delivery without evidence of displacing or controlling the older system.","mechanism_findings":["Existing country systems and cofinance accelerated delivery","Institutional legitimacy and technical capacity mattered","Project volume did not establish geopolitical alignment"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P07"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO025","IS-AO026","IS-AO027"],"source_ids":["IS-AS020","IS-AS021"],"confidence":"high_for_delivery_low_for_influence","revision_triggers":["Independent outcome evaluations","Governance or conditionality changes","Recipient preference evidence"]},{"case_id":"IS-C10","title":"BRICS expansion, Rio commitments, and delivery","overall_ruling":"agenda_reach_supported_taskability_unproven","objective_result":"Expansion and the Rio agenda increased convening and narrative reach, but heterogeneous interests, voluntary implementation and a short observation window prevent a coalition-delivery judgment.","mechanism_findings":["Membership scale amplifies agenda setting","Consensus language masks divergent preferences","No common enforcement or pooled capability matches formal alliance taskability"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P04","IS-P07","IS-P08"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO028","IS-AO029","IS-AO030"],"source_ids":["IS-AS022","IS-AS023"],"confidence":"moderate_for_agenda_low_for_delivery","revision_triggers":["Funded common mechanisms","Repeated aligned member behavior","Implementation scorecard for Rio commitments"]},{"case_id":"IS-C11","title":"PRC overseas port investment to military and strategic access","overall_ruling":"conditional_single_case_conversion","objective_result":"Djibouti demonstrates one real infrastructure-relationship-access sequence; Hambantota demonstrates why finance and operating control do not automatically become military permission.","mechanism_findings":["Host security interests and sovereign agreement are necessary","Commercial ownership is not military taskability","Generalization across ports is unsupported"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P02","IS-P07"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO031","IS-AO032","IS-AO033"],"source_ids":["IS-AS024","IS-AS025","IS-AS031"],"confidence":"high_for_cases_low_for_generalization","revision_triggers":["Repeated crisis throughput at multiple ports","New host defense agreements","Evidence of denied access despite ownership"]},{"case_id":"IS-C12","title":"PRC critical-mineral controls and diversification response","overall_ruling":"denial_effective_compellence_unproven","objective_result":"Concentration converted into real product-specific disruption, but targets adapted and no durable policy compliance was demonstrated.","mechanism_findings":["Midstream processing and qualification created leverage","Use revealed the dependency and accelerated substitution","Target agency separated cost from compellence"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P05","IS-P06","IS-P10","IS-P12"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO034","IS-AO035","IS-AO036"],"source_ids":["IS-AS026","IS-AS027"],"confidence":"high_for_denial_low_for_compellence","revision_triggers":["Verified target policy change","Qualified substitute scale","Sustained cutoff beyond inventories"]},{"case_id":"IS-C13","title":"PRC-brokered Saudi-Iran diplomatic restoration","overall_ruling":"bounded_diplomatic_success","objective_result":"China helped deliver and sustain restoration of diplomatic relations; the evidence does not support a broader claim of regional security leadership or conflict resolution.","mechanism_findings":["Good offices and trusted venue matched parties ready to settle","Clear narrow terms enabled verification","Prior mediators and party agency limit exclusive Chinese credit"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P07","IS-P08","IS-P13"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO037","IS-AO038","IS-AO039"],"source_ids":["IS-AS028","IS-AS029"],"confidence":"high_for_restoration_moderate_for_china_contribution","revision_triggers":["Embassy closure or agreement repudiation","Independent evidence on China's indispensable role","Broader security cooperation caused by the accord"]},{"case_id":"IS-C14","title":"Taiwan Strait deterrence, coercion, and competitive shaping","overall_ruling":"contested_indeterminate","objective_result":"The status quo persisted, but PRC coercion intensified and neither no-war nor no-unification can be causally assigned to a single strategy.","mechanism_findings":["U.S. assurance and Taiwan defense raise denial prospects","PRC pressure shapes daily operating conditions","Actions generate countervailing signaling and coalition feedback"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P01","IS-P02","IS-P03","IS-P04","IS-P06","IS-P08","IS-P09","IS-P10","IS-P11","IS-P13","IS-P14"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO040","IS-AO041","IS-AO042"],"source_ids":["IS-AS030","IS-AS031"],"confidence":"low_for_causal_deterrence","revision_triggers":["Observable decision evidence","Major blockade or invasion","Stable reduction in coercive activity after a defined action"]},{"case_id":"IS-C15","title":"South China Sea pressure and Philippine coalition response","overall_ruling":"tactical_prc_effect_strategic_counterbalancing","objective_result":"PRC gray-zone pressure achieved intermittent tactical denial and cost imposition but strengthened Philippine-U.S. cooperation and did not remove the Philippine outpost or produce a durable settlement.","mechanism_findings":["Coast guard and militia exploit threshold ambiguity","Documentation and alliance assurance mobilized partners","Provisional arrangements managed one flashpoint without resolving the contest"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P02","IS-P03","IS-P04","IS-P11","IS-P13"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO043","IS-AO044","IS-AO045"],"source_ids":["IS-AS012","IS-AS013","IS-AS032"],"confidence":"high_for_events_moderate_for_strategy","revision_triggers":["Permanent removal or secure resupply","Treaty activation","Sustained de-escalation or new host access"]},{"case_id":"IS-C16","title":"IPEF supply-chain institutions and crisis-response conversion","overall_ruling":"institution_created_effectiveness_unproven","objective_result":"The United States converted diplomacy into a functioning institutional framework, but no major public stress case yet demonstrates preserved supply or faster recovery.","mechanism_findings":["Agreement and bodies were delivered quickly","No market access narrows incentives","Action teams remain upstream of output"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P05","IS-P09"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO046","IS-AO047","IS-AO048"],"source_ids":["IS-AS033","IS-AS034"],"confidence":"high_for_institution_low_for_effect","revision_triggers":["Crisis Response Network activation","Measured diversification","Member withdrawal or expanded commitments"]},{"case_id":"IS-C17","title":"WTO Appellate Body impasse and U.S. institutional trade-offs","overall_ruling":"pressure_achieved_reform_not_achieved_fratricide_risk","objective_result":"The United States disabled the appellate mechanism but did not secure a broadly accepted replacement; pending appeals and MPIA adaptation reduced the value of the institution to U.S. rule-based leverage.","mechanism_findings":["Appointment control provided blocking leverage","Substantive complaints did not become negotiated reform","Alternative institutional action proceeded without the United States"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P05","IS-P09","IS-P14"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO049","IS-AO050","IS-AO051"],"source_ids":["IS-AS035","IS-AS036","IS-AS037"],"confidence":"high_for_status_moderate_for_net_effect","revision_triggers":["Agreed reform","U.S. accession to alternative","Evidence paralysis improved bargaining outcomes net of lost enforcement"]},{"case_id":"IS-C18","title":"PRC development-finance delivery, renegotiation, and relationship repair","overall_ruling":"extreme_provision_mixed_conversion_adapting","objective_result":"PRC finance delivered infrastructure and relationships at exceptional scale, but distressed projects, borrower agency and nonautomatic strategic access forced a portfolio reboot and collaborative repair.","mechanism_findings":["Upstream finance and construction are a real advantage","Delivery quality and debt sustainability mediate legitimacy","Renegotiation demonstrates adaptation, not proof of original coercive design or success"],"pathway_ids":["IS-P07","IS-P14"],"observation_ids":["IS-AO052","IS-AO053","IS-AO054"],"source_ids":["IS-AS019","IS-AS024","IS-AS025","IS-AS038","IS-AS039"],"confidence":"moderate","revision_triggers":["Updated project outcomes","Recipient trust and policy decisions","Repeated strategic access conversion or widespread creditor losses"]}],"pathways":[{"pathway_id":"IS-P01","position":"supported_conditional","ruling":"Industry becomes military effect only through qualified output, maintenance, logistics and mission timing. Ukraine supports allied aggregation but exposes U.S./partner physical bottlenecks; PRC scale is extreme upstream but distant operational conversion remains less observable.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C03","IS-C05","IS-C14"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO002","IS-AO007","IS-AO013"],"confidence":"moderate","title":"Industrial capacity to fielded and sustained military effect"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P02","position":"supported_conditional","ruling":"Diplomacy can create usable access when hosts authorize, fund, exercise and sustain it. EDCA and Djibouti support the mechanism; Hambantota and sovereign caveats reject automatic conversion.","case_ids":["IS-C05","IS-C11","IS-C15"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO013","IS-AO015","IS-AO031","IS-AO032","IS-AO033"],"confidence":"high","title":"Diplomacy to usable access and military reach"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P03","position":"supported_bounded","ruling":"Military assurance contributes to partner commitment when threat perceptions, credible capability and political consultation align; accession and Philippine cooperation support the link, but no-war and retention cannot alone prove deterrence.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C05","IS-C14","IS-C15"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO001","IS-AO014","IS-AO040","IS-AO044"],"confidence":"moderate","title":"Military assurance to coalition commitment and durability"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P04","position":"insufficient_for_independent_effect","ruling":"Credible narratives may support coalition legitimacy, but across Ukraine, FOCAC, Taiwan and the South China Sea, material interests and threat perception dominate the observable decision record. Independent informational contribution is not isolated.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C05","IS-C08","IS-C10","IS-C14","IS-C15"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO014","IS-AO022","IS-AO028","IS-AO041","IS-AO044"],"confidence":"low","title":"Narrative credibility to coalition legitimacy and action"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P05","position":"supported_for_targeted_coverage","ruling":"Coalition coordination can align law and enforcement at a small number of pivotal nodes, as semiconductor, Iran and Russia cases show. Free riding, alternative routes, burden and institutional exclusion bound wider effectiveness.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C03","IS-C07","IS-C12","IS-C16","IS-C17"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO007","IS-AO019","IS-AO034","IS-AO046","IS-AO049"],"confidence":"high","title":"Coalition coordination to economic denial or pressure"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P06","position":"rare_and_objective_dependent","ruling":"Economic pressure reliably imposes cost more often than it changes policy. Iran supports one bounded bargain; Russia, Australia-equivalent mineral dynamics and current controls show adaptation or noncompliance. Denial and compellence must remain separate.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C03","IS-C07","IS-C12","IS-C14"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO009","IS-AO019","IS-AO021","IS-AO036"],"confidence":"moderate","title":"Economic pressure to target decision or behavior"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P07","position":"supported_but_nonautomatic","ruling":"Development finance and institutional delivery can create valued capability, relationships and agenda access. FOCAC, AIIB, Djibouti and BRI repair show real pathways, but host choice, project performance and nonexclusive alignment prevent automatic influence or military access.","case_ids":["IS-C08","IS-C09","IS-C10","IS-C11","IS-C13","IS-C18"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO023","IS-AO027","IS-AO031","IS-AO033","IS-AO037","IS-AO054"],"confidence":"moderate","title":"Economic development and finance to diplomatic access or institutional influence"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P08","position":"insufficient_for_state_conversion","ruling":"Cultural and informational attraction creates exposure and relationships, but the selected cases do not isolate a consequential policy choice caused by contact. Independent ecosystem attraction may advantage a country without becoming a taskable instrument.","case_ids":["IS-C08","IS-C10","IS-C13","IS-C14","IS-C15"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO024","IS-AO028","IS-AO037"],"confidence":"low","title":"Cultural and informational attraction to relationships and revealed preference"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P09","position":"supported_conditional","ruling":"Technology and standards become strategic ecosystems when technical performance, production, rules, trust and users align. Semiconductor controls, 5G host choices and IPEF institution-building support pieces of the chain; none alone establishes durable strategic effect.","case_ids":["IS-C03","IS-C05","IS-C14","IS-C16","IS-C17"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO007","IS-AO008","IS-AO046","IS-AO047","IS-AO050"],"confidence":"moderate","title":"Technology and standards to interoperable strategic ecosystems"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P10","position":"supported","ruling":"Resilience can preserve strategic freedom when substitution and recovery arrive before the state-option deadline. Europe's gas shift is the strongest affirmative case; mineral, maritime and semiconductor cases show that nominal alternatives may remain slow or costly.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C04","IS-C12","IS-C14","IS-C15"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO011","IS-AO012","IS-AO035"],"confidence":"high","title":"Resilience to sustained instrument availability and coercion denial"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P11","position":"insufficient_comparative_basis","ruling":"The cases show public attribution and coalition messaging accompanying decisions, but they do not provide matched exposure-to-decision evidence sufficient to isolate information-integrity effects on coalition resilience.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C05","IS-C14","IS-C15"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO014","IS-AO040","IS-AO044"],"confidence":"low","title":"Information integrity to decision and coalition resilience"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P12","position":"supported_in_selected_cycles","ruling":"Observed failure can improve later design: rare-earth diversification, iterative semiconductor rules and BRI portfolio repair show adaptation. Afghanistan shows that abundant warnings do not guarantee implemented learning, and cross-system comparison remains weak.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C02","IS-C03","IS-C06","IS-C07","IS-C12","IS-C18"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO004","IS-AO008","IS-AO035","IS-AO053"],"confidence":"moderate","title":"Cross-instrument learning and adaptation to improved repeated performance"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P13","position":"supported_only_with_bounded_objective_and_off_ramp","ruling":"Imposed military or economic cost can support bargaining when demands and exits are clear. JCPOA and Saudi-Iran diplomacy show off-ramp value; Afghanistan and unresolved Taiwan/South China Sea contests reject a general cost-to-termination rule.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C02","IS-C06","IS-C07","IS-C13","IS-C14","IS-C15"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO005","IS-AO016","IS-AO019","IS-AO037","IS-AO042","IS-AO045"],"confidence":"moderate","title":"Military capability and imposed cost to bargaining, crisis, or termination"},{"pathway_id":"IS-P14","position":"supported","ruling":"One instrument can damage the legitimacy, access, network or future option set that another requires. JCPOA withdrawal and WTO paralysis are direct U.S. cases; PRC coercive use of markets and materials can accelerate diversification and balancing.","case_ids":["IS-C01","IS-C02","IS-C07","IS-C14","IS-C17","IS-C18"],"decisive_observation_ids":["IS-AO020","IS-AO036","IS-AO044","IS-AO049","IS-AO050","IS-AO051"],"confidence":"high","title":"Cross-instrument friction, fratricide, and strategic trade-offs"}],"red_team":{"schema_version":"1.0-private","status":"strategy_internal_red_team_complete","as_of":"2026-08-14","scope":"Eighteen strategy cases, fifty-four applied observations and fourteen pathway rulings","review_type":"precommitted internal adversarial review; not external peer review","hypothesis_results":[{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT01","result":"material_and_bounded","effect":"Synergy was credited only where sequence and directional connection were observed; co-occurrence was not counted."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT02","result":"decisive","effect":"Ukraine and semiconductor cases rejected scale-to-effect shortcuts and exposed qualification, maintenance, supplier and logistics bottlenecks."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT03","result":"material_and_applied","effect":"EDCA, Nordic accession and Ukraine retained partner agency, authorization, burden and policy-continuity conditions."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT04","result":"material_and_applied","effect":"FOCAC coherence was separated from delivery; BRI repair and mineral feedback exposed centralization and information limits."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT05","result":"decisive_withholding","effect":"Narrative and cultural pathways remained insufficient because material interests, threat and independent actors were not controlled."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT06","result":"decisive","effect":"Iran supported a bounded bargain, while Russia, minerals and other cases rejected cost-to-compellence generalization."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT07","result":"decisive","effect":"Djibouti showed possible conversion; Hambantota, AIIB and BRI variation rejected automatic finance-to-alignment or base claims."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT08","result":"material_and_applied","effect":"Semiconductor, 5G and institutional cases retained partner autonomy, open diffusion, commercial response and ecosystem erosion."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT09","result":"material_and_applied","effect":"European gas recovery was credited after measured substitution; nominal buffers and no-collapse were not treated as resilience elsewhere."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT10","result":"decisive_withholding","effect":"Information-integrity pathway remained unscored without exposure-to-decision evidence and error or rights costs."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT11","result":"material_and_applied","effect":"Learning was supported only for observed design changes; Afghanistan demonstrated warning without effective learning."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT12","result":"decisive","effect":"Taiwan received no deterrence-success call from the absence of invasion."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT13","result":"decisive","effect":"ISIS success was bounded to territorial defeat; Saudi-Iran to diplomatic restoration; no agreement was treated as complete termination."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT14","result":"material_and_applied","effect":"Closed-system and classified observability limits prevented symmetric national comparison and an overall winner."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT15","result":"material_and_disclosed","effect":"The sample remains purposive and case-rich in coercion, conflict and documented institutions; no prevalence estimate is made."},{"hypothesis_id":"IS-RT16","result":"pass_with_deduplication","effect":"Each applied observation has one identifier and is linked downstream without tallying repeated domain edges or sources."}],"audit_results":[{"test_id":"IS-T01","result":"pass","note":"Decision question, cases, pathways and gates were frozen before adjudication."},{"test_id":"IS-T02","result":"pass","note":"Foundations remained distinct from Defense, Economics, Diplomacy and Information."},{"test_id":"IS-T03","result":"pass","note":"Every applied observation records instrument IDs and one causal stage."},{"test_id":"IS-T04","result":"pass","note":"Shared events were assigned stable observation IDs and not recounted as separate advantages."},{"test_id":"IS-T05","result":"pass_with_bounds","note":"Integration claims identify at least two delivered instruments and a directional mechanism."},{"test_id":"IS-T06","result":"pass","note":"Case findings use chronology and do not infer orchestration from simultaneity."},{"test_id":"IS-T07","result":"pass_with_withholding","note":"Marginal contribution is bounded where counterfactuals are unavailable."},{"test_id":"IS-T08","result":"pass","note":"Substitution, redundancy, friction, fratricide and foregone options are visible."},{"test_id":"IS-T09","result":"pass","note":"Partner, recipient, private and local-force agency is separately attributed."},{"test_id":"IS-T10","result":"pass","note":"Target preferences and adaptation remain explicit rivals."},{"test_id":"IS-T11","result":"pass","note":"Deterrence, denial, compellence, shaping, crisis management and termination are never aggregated."},{"test_id":"IS-T12","result":"pass","note":"No deterrence inference rests on no war; no compellence inference rests on cost."},{"test_id":"IS-T13","result":"pass","note":"ISIS, JCPOA and Saudi-Iran findings include implementation and durability bounds."},{"test_id":"IS-T14","result":"pass","note":"Capability, strategy choice, execution and outcome are distinct fields."},{"test_id":"IS-T15","result":"pass","note":"Fact, mechanism and outcome confidence are disclosed separately where material."},{"test_id":"IS-T16","result":"pass_with_withholding","note":"Three pathways remain insufficient and Taiwan is indeterminate."},{"test_id":"IS-T17","result":"pass","note":"Afghanistan, Hambantota, WTO, minerals and unresolved cases challenge favored theses."},{"test_id":"IS-T18","result":"pass_bounded","note":"Phase and outcome sensitivity are reflected in split JCPOA, ISIS, gas and development-finance rulings."},{"test_id":"IS-T19","result":"pass","note":"No edge count, score, average or overall national winner exists."},{"test_id":"IS-T20","result":"pass","note":"User authorized full completion and publication remains subject to preview and production verification."}],"surviving_conclusions":["The U.S./partner system has exceptional permissioned aggregation capacity but recurrent physical and political conversion constraints.","The PRC-centered system has exceptional concentrated provision and throughput but recurrent recipient-permission, trust and durable-conversion constraints.","Economic and material denial is more common than compellence.","Host and recipient agency is the decisive bridge between provision and strategic access.","Instrument use can erode the network, market or credibility that creates future power."],"withheld_conclusions":["An overall national winner or composite score","A general causal ranking of deterrence strategies","Independent narrative, cultural or information-integrity contribution","Permanent semiconductor denial or broad mineral compellence","Automatic development-finance conversion to alignment or basing"]}}