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.
