{ "schema": "builttoresist.research-evidence-graph.v1", "version": "0.41.0", "site": "builttoresist.com", "provenance_contract": "study-provenance-v1", "research_graph_contract": "research-evidence-graph-v1", "political_output_constraint": "neutral_factual_nonpersuasive", "operational_violence_guidance": "excluded", "authority_order": [ "exact_report_bodies", "claim_register", "qualification_tension_ledger", "study_derivatives" ], "interpretation_rule": "Relations classify how report findings support, qualify, limit transferability, or raise uncertainty; they do not replace report bodies.", "reports": [ { "report_id": "RPT-01", "filename": "Catastrophic Leadership Loss and Continuity of Government.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Catastrophic Leadership Loss and Continuity of Government.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Catastrophic%20Leadership%20Loss%20and%20Continuity%20of%20Government.md", "sha256": "a139f16ef0a76a9cc91cf97c3ae4d73f3113d8a0dcdcdb96773c9682887fc1d8", "bytes": 56812, "study_ids": [ "leadership-loss" ], "review_class": "current_continuity_baseline", "review_trigger": "Review succession, vacancies, congressional continuity, and agency continuity authorities after material changes.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-02", "filename": "Catastrophic Leadership Loss and Continuity-of-Government Failure.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Catastrophic Leadership Loss and Continuity-of-Government Failure.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Catastrophic%20Leadership%20Loss%20and%20Continuity-of-Government%20Failure.md", "sha256": "a6bce5ccb0940e5db3101f11e6154edd4080e1b539a665345f88dcff7c99050c", "bytes": 53634, "study_ids": [ "leadership-loss" ], "review_class": "current_continuity_baseline", "review_trigger": "Review succession/continuity/authentication authorities and regulated-facility requirements after material changes.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-03", "filename": "Contested Presidential Succession and Dual Government U.S. Continuity-of-Government Assessment Part 2.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Contested Presidential Succession and Dual Government U.S. Continuity-of-Government Assessment Part 2.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Contested%20Presidential%20Succession%20and%20Dual%20Government%20U.S.%20Continuity-of-Government%20Assessment%20Part%202.md", "sha256": "8eaf8918239d683456b4e2aa0d715c1d44022fb42a550c0902633c446ed4acae", "bytes": 29676, "study_ids": [ "contested-succession" ], "review_class": "mixed_budget_and_continuity", "review_trigger": "Review appropriations/shutdown/agency contingency baselines before reuse in a later fiscal period.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-04", "filename": "Contested Presidential Succession and Dual Government U.S. Continuity-of-Government Assessment.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Contested Presidential Succession and Dual Government U.S. Continuity-of-Government Assessment.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Contested%20Presidential%20Succession%20and%20Dual%20Government%20U.S.%20Continuity-of-Government%20Assessment.md", "sha256": "89d9b7c8fdc37e5826ef5af93042a5943b13bb77f2bb54749a88e2695d7fa860", "bytes": 62951, "study_ids": [ "contested-succession" ], "review_class": "current_legal_and_continuity", "review_trigger": "Review after succession/election/departmental-authority law or continuity doctrine changes.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-05", "filename": "Contested Succession and Dual Claims to Lawful Federal Authority.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Contested Succession and Dual Claims to Lawful Federal Authority.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Contested%20Succession%20and%20Dual%20Claims%20to%20Lawful%20Federal%20Authority.md", "sha256": "55e510940a4eab2989850fdb6f424714c8b85f32a079ea0c0d5c61a4207440c3", "bytes": 57984, "study_ids": [ "contested-succession" ], "review_class": "current_legal_and_continuity", "review_trigger": "Review after changes to succession/electoral-count/continuity law or relevant institutional procedures.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-06", "filename": "Executive Self-Coup or Gradual Internal Institutional Capture U.S. Institutional-Resilience Assessment.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Executive Self-Coup or Gradual Internal Institutional Capture U.S. Institutional-Resilience Assessment.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Executive%20Self-Coup%20or%20Gradual%20Internal%20Institutional%20Capture%20U.S.%20Institutional-Resilience%20Assessment.md", "sha256": "443542823cb53998bc2e8fad9f432205331eb1b45183cc9fe2e13b5c35d6ee8e", "bytes": 69523, "study_ids": [ "executive-capture" ], "review_class": "current_legal_and_comparative", "review_trigger": "Review after material constitutional/statutory/case-law changes or major new comparative evidence.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-07", "filename": "Federal-State Legitimacy Fracture and the Emergence of Competing Governing Blocs.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Federal-State Legitimacy Fracture and the Emergence of Competing Governing Blocs.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Federal-State%20Legitimacy%20Fracture%20and%20the%20Emergence%20of%20Competing%20Governing%20Blocs.md", "sha256": "7bbe2c75a121bb9391a53ea0b93a37ee27e8dbc05877a41ae5721ba858c8ea5e", "bytes": 65470, "study_ids": [ "federal-state-fracture" ], "review_class": "current_federalism_and_continuity", "review_trigger": "Review current legal/administrative/financial baselines before reuse; core cross-cuttingness mechanism is structural.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-08", "filename": "Federal–State Sovereignty Fracture Thresholds, Failure Modes, and Continuity of Critical Federal Functions.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Federal–State Sovereignty Fracture Thresholds, Failure Modes, and Continuity of Critical Federal Functions.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Federal%E2%80%93State%20Sovereignty%20Fracture%20Thresholds%2C%20Failure%20Modes%2C%20and%20Continuity%20of%20Critical%20Federal%20Functions.md", "sha256": "a4358e1744714d13073de1d8ea533ca0cb404108d56e0837078c3348c7dbca34", "bytes": 61456, "study_ids": [ "federal-state-fracture" ], "review_class": "current_federalism_and_continuity", "review_trigger": "Review controlling federalism/Guard case law, statutes, and continuity arrangements after material changes.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-09", "filename": "Fiscal-Administrative Breakdown and Extraordinary Emergency Governance in the United States.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Fiscal-Administrative Breakdown and Extraordinary Emergency Governance in the United States.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Fiscal-Administrative%20Breakdown%20and%20Extraordinary%20Emergency%20Governance%20in%20the%20United%20States.md", "sha256": "cabaa22f653bb45ca285645391e15f9ed5f708f214525e1fbfb05544fbc3ff5b", "bytes": 45310, "study_ids": [ "fiscal-administrative-breakdown" ], "review_class": "current_fiscal_legal_baseline", "review_trigger": "Review appropriations, Antideficiency Act practice, CR/shutdown history, and continuity authorities each fiscal cycle.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-10", "filename": "Foreign-Amplified Domestic Legitimacy Fracture.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Foreign-Amplified Domestic Legitimacy Fracture.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Foreign-Amplified%20Domestic%20Legitimacy%20Fracture.md", "sha256": "9581e0e1a70d079f4caceb9895d60c4419ac779a0dd1211b237386ac014ad697", "bytes": 67803, "study_ids": [ "foreign-amplification" ], "review_class": "time_sensitive_threat_and_resilience", "review_trigger": "Review threat assessments, attribution cases, platform/AI methods, and cyber/communications doctrine before current use.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-11", "filename": "Foreign-Amplified Legitimacy Fracture During a U.S. Constitutional Crisis.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Foreign-Amplified Legitimacy Fracture During a U.S. Constitutional Crisis.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Foreign-Amplified%20Legitimacy%20Fracture%20During%20a%20U.S.%20Constitutional%20Crisis.md", "sha256": "051e7ba40e280d72ec753c75dcaf8b20f3a25e778e6297347971469bb1d37746", "bytes": 54617, "study_ids": [ "foreign-amplification" ], "review_class": "time_sensitive_threat_and_resilience", "review_trigger": "Review current intelligence/threat assessments, influence cases, attribution evidence, and financial/cyber resilience references.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-12", "filename": "Hypothetical U.S. Mass Class Uprising Escalating to Sustained Armed Conflict(1).md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Hypothetical U.S. Mass Class Uprising Escalating to Sustained Armed Conflict(1).md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Hypothetical%20U.S.%20Mass%20Class%20Uprising%20Escalating%20to%20Sustained%20Armed%20Conflict%281%29.md", "sha256": "1caf12eb8cdc2160d5bb90f786536bf0dcc77ec4689dca2414b63663a500bda6", "bytes": 48528, "study_ids": [ "armed-escalation" ], "review_class": "scenario_stress_model", "review_trigger": "Review assumptions, baseline population/economic inputs, and legal authorities before reuse in a later period.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-13", "filename": "Mass Nonviolent Paralysis U.S. Mobilization Scenario Analysis.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Mass Nonviolent Paralysis U.S. Mobilization Scenario Analysis.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Mass%20Nonviolent%20Paralysis%20U.S.%20Mobilization%20Scenario%20Analysis.md", "sha256": "c3922f89dc132ef8295f21bab9a151da603b3cb9d5dcacbd13138936224eaa54", "bytes": 31453, "study_ids": [ "mass-nonviolent-paralysis" ], "review_class": "scenario_and_comparative", "review_trigger": "Review when core civil-resistance/security-defection literature or relevant U.S. labor/continuity law changes.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-14", "filename": "Mass Nonviolent Paralysis and Political Transition in the United States.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Mass Nonviolent Paralysis and Political Transition in the United States.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Mass%20Nonviolent%20Paralysis%20and%20Political%20Transition%20in%20the%20United%20States.md", "sha256": "ba84a9ba7b81759c7330544628be0c9f987197caa3b96b814a0ef9deb8f40a8f", "bytes": 59279, "study_ids": [ "mass-nonviolent-paralysis" ], "review_class": "mixed_current_and_comparative", "review_trigger": "Review when U.S. election/labor/continuity law or major civil-resistance evidence materially changes.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-15", "filename": "Scenario Analysis U.S. Executive Self-Coup or Institutional Takeover.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Scenario Analysis U.S. Executive Self-Coup or Institutional Takeover.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Scenario%20Analysis%20U.S.%20Executive%20Self-Coup%20or%20Institutional%20Takeover.md", "sha256": "e278b5cf913d10e564e8a87bcfa2c078ee67d0512a42cf994a17e319ce541eb7", "bytes": 48860, "study_ids": [ "executive-capture" ], "review_class": "scenario_and_structural", "review_trigger": "Review assumptions and any legal/current-event references before reuse; preserve as scenario evidence, not present-state description.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-16", "filename": "Security Sector Fracture Analysis.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Security Sector Fracture Analysis.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Security%20Sector%20Fracture%20Analysis.md", "sha256": "3ee0ba3757da2bf9b9d61609298e4d83a7c63e60b50af8b0d19b4d9265d364a9", "bytes": 50725, "study_ids": [ "security-sector-fracture" ], "review_class": "structural_and_comparative", "review_trigger": "Review UCMJ/Guard/federal authority law and newer comparative datasets before reuse.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-17", "filename": "Security-Sector Command Fracture U.S. Civil–Military Framework.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Security-Sector Command Fracture U.S. Civil–Military Framework.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Security-Sector%20Command%20Fracture%20U.S.%20Civil%E2%80%93Military%20Framework.md", "sha256": "ebb4c4235415a26a50d1862ad5fe224096e36db55d8d5eb97f2dd8b2dc3b23b2", "bytes": 17702, "study_ids": [ "security-sector-fracture" ], "review_class": "structural_legal_framework", "review_trigger": "Review legal authorities and any current examples before reuse; behavioral forecasts remain uncertain.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-18", "filename": "Security-Sector Command Fracture in a U.S. Constitutional Crisis Cohesion, Lawful Authority, and Sovereignty Risk.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Security-Sector Command Fracture in a U.S. Constitutional Crisis Cohesion, Lawful Authority, and Sovereignty Risk.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Security-Sector%20Command%20Fracture%20in%20a%20U.S.%20Constitutional%20Crisis%20Cohesion%2C%20Lawful%20Authority%2C%20and%20Sovereignty%20Risk.md", "sha256": "73a2c71ec071c1a00dce80f2721b7f069440051d6f145383b3e88e14bbf6b86e", "bytes": 54018, "study_ids": [ "security-sector-fracture" ], "review_class": "current_legal_and_comparative", "review_trigger": "Review after material changes to military/Guard authorities, controlling case law, or comparative security-sector evidence.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-19", "filename": "Synchronized Youth Uprisings and U.S. Political Paralysis A Global Contagion Scenario Assessment(1).md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/Synchronized Youth Uprisings and U.S. Political Paralysis A Global Contagion Scenario Assessment(1).md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/Synchronized%20Youth%20Uprisings%20and%20U.S.%20Political%20Paralysis%20A%20Global%20Contagion%20Scenario%20Assessment%281%29.md", "sha256": "0d56a7e302ec820dcd03806db9f6d2cb55aef360eaf8adff1b4fdd1e6fcb9cbf", "bytes": 53799, "study_ids": [ "youth-uprising-contagion" ], "review_class": "mixed_current_and_scenario", "review_trigger": "Review youth/economic indicators, contemporary comparison cases, and U.S. legal baseline before reuse.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-20", "filename": "The Right to Bear Arms as an Anti-Tyranny Safeguard A Debate Case for the Proposition.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/The Right to Bear Arms as an Anti-Tyranny Safeguard A Debate Case for the Proposition.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/The%20Right%20to%20Bear%20Arms%20as%20an%20Anti-Tyranny%20Safeguard%20A%20Debate%20Case%20for%20the%20Proposition.md", "sha256": "8252899446972a7ca2e6b9d8c4467469706f175991e51d5e7964817adcf8fff6", "bytes": 61133, "study_ids": [ "resistance-law" ], "review_class": "historical_legal_and_normative", "review_trigger": "Review controlling Second Amendment/rebellion/private-militia law before presenting current legal boundaries.", "authority": "report_body" }, { "report_id": "RPT-21", "filename": "The Second Amendment, Militias, and the Right of Resistance to Tyranny.md", "path": "docs/long-term-memory/reports/The Second Amendment, Militias, and the Right of Resistance to Tyranny.md", "href": "/docs/long-term-memory/reports/The%20Second%20Amendment%2C%20Militias%2C%20and%20the%20Right%20of%20Resistance%20to%20Tyranny.md", "sha256": "92765a543232334a997fd616aeb2bba8d1c2d53f0aedf263166def6a800681f4", "bytes": 59497, "study_ids": [ "resistance-law" ], "review_class": "historical_legal_and_normative", "review_trigger": "Review controlling Supreme Court, militia, rebellion, and private-military law before presenting current legal boundaries.", "authority": "report_body" } ], "studies": [ { "study_id": "mass-nonviolent-paralysis", "title": "Mass Nonviolent Paralysis", "public_path": "/studies/mass-nonviolent-paralysis/" }, { "study_id": "armed-escalation", "title": "Mass Uprising → Armed Escalation", "public_path": "/studies/armed-escalation/" }, { "study_id": "youth-uprising-contagion", "title": "Youth Uprising Contagion", "public_path": "/studies/youth-uprising-contagion/" }, { "study_id": "executive-capture", "title": "Executive Self-Coup / Institutional Capture", "public_path": "/studies/executive-capture/" }, { "study_id": "contested-succession", "title": "Contested Succession / Dual Claims", "public_path": "/studies/contested-succession/" }, { "study_id": "security-sector-fracture", "title": "Security-Sector Command Fracture", "public_path": "/studies/security-sector-fracture/" }, { "study_id": "federal-state-fracture", "title": "Federal–State Sovereignty Fracture", "public_path": "/studies/federal-state-fracture/" }, { "study_id": "leadership-loss", "title": "Catastrophic Leadership Loss", "public_path": "/studies/leadership-loss/" }, { "study_id": "fiscal-administrative-breakdown", "title": "Fiscal–Administrative Breakdown", "public_path": "/studies/fiscal-administrative-breakdown/" }, { "study_id": "foreign-amplification", "title": "Foreign-Amplified Legitimacy Fracture", "public_path": "/studies/foreign-amplification/" }, { "study_id": "resistance-law", "title": "Resistance, Arms & Constitutional Legitimacy", "public_path": "/studies/resistance-law/" } ], "claims": [ { "claim_id": "CLM-001", "statement": "Mobilization converts into regime-level pressure through institutional behavior, not crowd size alone.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_mechanism_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-14", "filename": "Mass Nonviolent Paralysis and Political Transition in the United States.md", "anchor": "crisis-model-warning-indicators-and-capacity-metrics", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-19", "filename": "Synchronized Youth Uprisings and U.S. Political Paralysis A Global Contagion Scenario Assessment(1).md", "anchor": "mitigation-monitoring-and-likely-political-outcomes", "relation": "qualifies" }, { "report_id": "RPT-12", "filename": "Hypothetical U.S. Mass Class Uprising Escalating to Sustained Armed Conflict(1).md", "anchor": "executive-summary", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-002", "statement": "Durable rival sovereignty requires compound institutional fracture across legal finality, command recognition, administration, finance, and off-ramps.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_mechanism_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-07", "filename": "Federal-State Legitimacy Fracture and the Emergence of Competing Governing Blocs.md", "anchor": "what-would-have-to-fail-simultaneously", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-08", "filename": "Federal–State Sovereignty Fracture Thresholds, Failure Modes, and Continuity of Critical Federal Functions.md", "anchor": "escalation-model-and-institutional-veto-points", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-04", "filename": "Contested Presidential Succession and Dual Government U.S. Continuity-of-Government Assessment.md", "anchor": "what-would-have-to-fail-for-prolonged-dual-sovereignty", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-003", "statement": "Continuity systems can preserve governmental capacity through severe political or leadership shocks; capacity crisis is not automatically sovereignty crisis.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_structural_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-01", "filename": "Catastrophic Leadership Loss and Continuity of Government.md", "anchor": "redundancy-failure-combinations-and-federalism", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-09", "filename": "Fiscal-Administrative Breakdown and Extraordinary Emergency Governance in the United States.md", "anchor": "the-buffers-that-keep-fiscal-paralysis-from-becoming-regime-change", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-05", "filename": "Contested Succession and Dual Claims to Lawful Federal Authority.md", "anchor": "escalation-tree-and-termination-dynamics", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-004", "statement": "Security-sector fracture has high analytical weight, but isolated refusals or resignations do not themselves create alternative sovereignty.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_legal_medium_behavioral_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-18", "filename": "Security-Sector Command Fracture in a U.S. Constitutional Crisis Cohesion, Lawful Authority, and Sovereignty Risk.md", "anchor": "confidence-judgments-and-contingency-implications", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-17", "filename": "Security-Sector Command Fracture U.S. Civil–Military Framework.md", "anchor": "distinguishing-disagreement-from-true-fracture", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-16", "filename": "Security Sector Fracture Analysis.md", "anchor": "part-v-scenario-branches-and-institutional-responses", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-005", "statement": "Executive aggrandizement can be incremental while constitutional forms persist; complete regime transformation requires multiple checking institutions to lose effective constraint.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_conceptual_medium_forecast_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-06", "filename": "Executive Self-Coup or Gradual Internal Institutional Capture U.S. Institutional-Resilience Assessment.md", "anchor": "concepts-boundaries-and-measurement", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-06", "filename": "Executive Self-Coup or Gradual Internal Institutional Capture U.S. Institutional-Resilience Assessment.md", "anchor": "resilience-failure-mechanisms-and-warning-indicators", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-15", "filename": "Scenario Analysis U.S. Executive Self-Coup or Institutional Takeover.md", "anchor": "regime-transformation-prerequisites", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-006", "statement": "Foreign influence should be modeled as an accelerator of domestic ambiguity; attribution, sponsorship, coordination, and political effect require separate confidence judgments.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_method_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-11", "filename": "Foreign-Amplified Legitimacy Fracture During a U.S. Constitutional Crisis.md", "anchor": "attribution-indicators-and-warning", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-10", "filename": "Foreign-Amplified Domestic Legitimacy Fracture.md", "anchor": "attribution-confidence-framework", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-007", "statement": "Founding-era anti-tyranny rationale is historically relevant but does not create a present judicially enforceable right to private armed insurrection.", "claim_type": "qualified_convergence", "confidence": "high_current_legal_boundary_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-21", "filename": "The Second Amendment, Militias, and the Right of Resistance to Tyranny.md", "anchor": "judicial-doctrine-militia-legislation-and-the-present-legal-boundary", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-20", "filename": "The Right to Bear Arms as an Anti-Tyranny Safeguard A Debate Case for the Proposition.md", "anchor": "constitutional-legal-and-international-foundations", "relation": "qualifies" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-008", "statement": "Violent escalation sharply increases humanitarian, economic, and civil-liberties costs and does not guarantee the political outcome intended by the original coalition.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_directional_low_numeric_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-12", "filename": "Hypothetical U.S. Mass Class Uprising Escalating to Sustained Armed Conflict(1).md", "anchor": "humanitarian-infrastructure-and-economic-consequences", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-12", "filename": "Hypothetical U.S. Mass Class Uprising Escalating to Sustained Armed Conflict(1).md", "anchor": "historical-precedents-political-implications-and-prioritized-evidence", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-19", "filename": "Synchronized Youth Uprisings and U.S. Political Paralysis A Global Contagion Scenario Assessment(1).md", "anchor": "quantitative-scenario-framework", "relation": "qualifies" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-009", "statement": "Courts, elections, succession, bargaining, verified information, and specific concessions are recurring institutional off-ramps that can prevent deeper fracture.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_mechanism_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-13", "filename": "Mass Nonviolent Paralysis U.S. Mobilization Scenario Analysis.md", "anchor": "de-escalation-pathways", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-07", "filename": "Federal-State Legitimacy Fracture and the Emergence of Competing Governing Blocs.md", "anchor": "escalation-de-escalation-and-warning-indicators", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-05", "filename": "Contested Succession and Dual Claims to Lawful Federal Authority.md", "anchor": "escalation-tree-and-termination-dynamics", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-010", "statement": "Financial settlement, appropriations, delegated authority, contracts, and enforceable legal claims are hidden stabilizers of political order.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_structural_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-07", "filename": "Federal-State Legitimacy Fracture and the Emergence of Competing Governing Blocs.md", "anchor": "finance-and-payments", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-09", "filename": "Fiscal-Administrative Breakdown and Extraordinary Emergency Governance in the United States.md", "anchor": "the-2026-fiscal-legal-and-continuity-baseline", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-04", "filename": "Contested Presidential Succession and Dual Government U.S. Continuity-of-Government Assessment.md", "anchor": "institutional-recognition-and-convergence", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-011", "statement": "Authentication and legal authority are separate questions: a message can be authentic while the sender lacks authority for the requested action.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_governance_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-10", "filename": "Foreign-Amplified Domestic Legitimacy Fracture.md", "anchor": "simultaneous-contradictory-purported-orders", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-02", "filename": "Catastrophic Leadership Loss and Continuity-of-Government Failure.md", "anchor": "authentication-and-authority-reconstitution", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-04", "filename": "Contested Presidential Succession and Dual Government U.S. Continuity-of-Government Assessment.md", "anchor": "authority-verification-doctrine", "relation": "supports" } ] }, { "claim_id": "CLM-012", "statement": "Comparative cases are best used to isolate mechanisms and failure conditions, not to mechanically forecast U.S. outcomes.", "claim_type": "cross_corpus_convergence", "confidence": "high_method_confidence", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-14", "filename": "Mass Nonviolent Paralysis and Political Transition in the United States.md", "anchor": "evidence-base-and-what-transfers-to-the-united-states", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-06", "filename": "Executive Self-Coup or Gradual Internal Institutional Capture U.S. Institutional-Resilience Assessment.md", "anchor": "comparative-cases-resilience-and-historical-false-positives", "relation": "supports" }, { "report_id": "RPT-16", "filename": "Security Sector Fracture Analysis.md", "anchor": "part-vi-historical-comparisons-transferability-limitations-and-judicial-boundaries", "relation": "supports" } ] } ], "tensions": [ { "tension_id": "TEN-001", "label": "historical rationale vs positive law", "relation": "qualified_by", "from_claim": "CLM-007", "to_claim": "CLM-007", "summary": "The corpus treats anti-tyranny ideas as historically significant while separately concluding that current law does not confer ordinary immunity for rebellion or unauthorized private military organization." }, { "tension_id": "TEN-002", "label": "foreign capability vs demonstrated effect", "relation": "limits_inference", "from_claim": "CLM-006", "to_claim": "CLM-006", "summary": "Evidence of sponsorship, coordination, reach, or technical capability is not by itself evidence that a political decision changed because of the operation." }, { "tension_id": "TEN-003", "label": "legal command structure vs behavioral uncertainty", "relation": "raises_uncertainty", "from_claim": "CLM-004", "to_claim": "CLM-012", "summary": "The legal architecture is comparatively knowable; behavior under an unprecedented rival-authority crisis remains much less certain." }, { "tension_id": "TEN-004", "label": "civil-resistance success literature vs U.S. transferability", "relation": "limits_transferability", "from_claim": "CLM-001", "to_claim": "CLM-012", "summary": "Comparative success rates and defection mechanisms illuminate pathways but do not supply a validated U.S. probability or participation threshold." }, { "tension_id": "TEN-005", "label": "state noncooperation vs rival sovereignty", "relation": "distinguishes_threshold", "from_claim": "CLM-002", "to_claim": "CLM-009", "summary": "Aggressive state resistance can remain inside constitutional federalism when common adjudication and institutional off-ramps still function." }, { "tension_id": "TEN-006", "label": "executive dominance vs regime transformation", "relation": "distinguishes_threshold", "from_claim": "CLM-005", "to_claim": "CLM-002", "summary": "Winning institutional battles or centralizing administration is not equivalent to durable regime replacement; the latter requires broader constraint failure." }, { "tension_id": "TEN-007", "label": "continuity survival vs cumulative degradation", "relation": "qualified_by", "from_claim": "CLM-003", "to_claim": "CLM-010", "summary": "Continuity can preserve legal existence and minimum functions while prolonged fiscal, staffing, supply, or communications degradation still accumulates meaningful damage." }, { "tension_id": "TEN-008", "label": "armed backstop theory vs outcome costs", "relation": "constrained_by", "from_claim": "CLM-007", "to_claim": "CLM-008", "summary": "Political theory about last-resort resistance does not establish tactical feasibility, legal immunity, civilian protection, or a beneficial post-conflict order." } ], "open_questions": [ { "question_id": "Q-001", "question": "What validated quantitative threshold, if any, marks transition from widespread political stress to durable competing sovereignty in the contemporary United States?", "status": "unresolved", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-18", "anchor": "confidence-judgments-and-contingency-implications" }, { "report_id": "RPT-14", "anchor": "low--medium--and-severe-impact-branches" } ] }, { "question_id": "Q-002", "question": "How would unit-level security organizations actually behave under sustained, genuinely ambiguous civilian authority?", "status": "unresolved", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-17", "anchor": "intelligence-gaps-and-confidence" }, { "report_id": "RPT-16", "anchor": "part-vii-intelligence-judgments-indicators-and-collection-gaps" } ] }, { "question_id": "Q-003", "question": "How much observed foreign amplification converts into material changes in domestic institutional behavior?", "status": "unresolved", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-11", "anchor": "attribution-indicators-and-warning" }, { "report_id": "RPT-10", "anchor": "priority-intelligence-gaps" } ] }, { "question_id": "Q-004", "question": "How quickly can multiple independent U.S. institutional systems recover a common authority chain after a prolonged compound crisis?", "status": "unresolved", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-01", "anchor": "unresolved-questions-and-confidence-assessment" }, { "report_id": "RPT-04", "anchor": "major-legal-uncertainties-and-confidence-judgments" } ] }, { "question_id": "Q-005", "question": "How transferable are historical campaign success rates and foreign comparative cases to a contemporary federal constitutional democracy with U.S.-specific institutions?", "status": "unresolved", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-14", "anchor": "evidence-base-and-what-transfers-to-the-united-states" }, { "report_id": "RPT-16", "anchor": "part-vi-historical-comparisons-transferability-limitations-and-judicial-boundaries" } ] }, { "question_id": "Q-006", "question": "Which forms of institutional restoration persist after a crisis versus merely re-establish formal legality while leaving degraded capacity or trust?", "status": "unresolved", "source_refs": [ { "report_id": "RPT-06", "anchor": "comparative-cases-resilience-and-historical-false-positives" }, { "report_id": "RPT-09", "anchor": "timeline-leading-indicators-and-recovery-thresholds" } ] } ], "edges": [ { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-14", "to": "CLM-001", "anchor": "crisis-model-warning-indicators-and-capacity-metrics" }, { "edge_type": "qualifies", "from": "RPT-19", "to": "CLM-001", "anchor": "mitigation-monitoring-and-likely-political-outcomes" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-12", "to": "CLM-001", "anchor": "executive-summary" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-07", "to": "CLM-002", "anchor": "what-would-have-to-fail-simultaneously" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-08", "to": "CLM-002", "anchor": "escalation-model-and-institutional-veto-points" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-04", "to": "CLM-002", "anchor": "what-would-have-to-fail-for-prolonged-dual-sovereignty" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-01", "to": "CLM-003", "anchor": "redundancy-failure-combinations-and-federalism" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-09", "to": "CLM-003", "anchor": "the-buffers-that-keep-fiscal-paralysis-from-becoming-regime-change" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-05", "to": "CLM-003", "anchor": "escalation-tree-and-termination-dynamics" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-18", "to": "CLM-004", "anchor": "confidence-judgments-and-contingency-implications" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-17", "to": "CLM-004", "anchor": "distinguishing-disagreement-from-true-fracture" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-16", "to": "CLM-004", "anchor": "part-v-scenario-branches-and-institutional-responses" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-06", "to": "CLM-005", "anchor": "concepts-boundaries-and-measurement" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-06", "to": "CLM-005", "anchor": "resilience-failure-mechanisms-and-warning-indicators" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-15", "to": "CLM-005", "anchor": "regime-transformation-prerequisites" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-11", "to": "CLM-006", "anchor": "attribution-indicators-and-warning" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-10", "to": "CLM-006", "anchor": "attribution-confidence-framework" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-21", "to": "CLM-007", "anchor": "judicial-doctrine-militia-legislation-and-the-present-legal-boundary" }, { "edge_type": "qualifies", "from": "RPT-20", "to": "CLM-007", "anchor": "constitutional-legal-and-international-foundations" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-12", "to": "CLM-008", "anchor": "humanitarian-infrastructure-and-economic-consequences" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-12", "to": "CLM-008", "anchor": "historical-precedents-political-implications-and-prioritized-evidence" }, { "edge_type": "qualifies", "from": "RPT-19", "to": "CLM-008", "anchor": "quantitative-scenario-framework" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-13", "to": "CLM-009", "anchor": "de-escalation-pathways" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-07", "to": "CLM-009", "anchor": "escalation-de-escalation-and-warning-indicators" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-05", "to": "CLM-009", "anchor": "escalation-tree-and-termination-dynamics" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-07", "to": "CLM-010", "anchor": "finance-and-payments" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-09", "to": "CLM-010", "anchor": "the-2026-fiscal-legal-and-continuity-baseline" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-04", "to": "CLM-010", "anchor": "institutional-recognition-and-convergence" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-10", "to": "CLM-011", "anchor": "simultaneous-contradictory-purported-orders" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-02", "to": "CLM-011", "anchor": "authentication-and-authority-reconstitution" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-04", "to": "CLM-011", "anchor": "authority-verification-doctrine" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-14", "to": "CLM-012", "anchor": "evidence-base-and-what-transfers-to-the-united-states" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-06", "to": "CLM-012", "anchor": "comparative-cases-resilience-and-historical-false-positives" }, { "edge_type": "supports", "from": "RPT-16", "to": "CLM-012", "anchor": "part-vi-historical-comparisons-transferability-limitations-and-judicial-boundaries" }, { "edge_type": "qualified_by", "from": "CLM-007", "to": "CLM-007", "tension_id": "TEN-001" }, { "edge_type": "limits_inference", "from": "CLM-006", "to": "CLM-006", "tension_id": "TEN-002" }, { "edge_type": "raises_uncertainty", "from": "CLM-004", "to": "CLM-012", "tension_id": "TEN-003" }, { "edge_type": "limits_transferability", "from": "CLM-001", "to": "CLM-012", "tension_id": "TEN-004" }, { "edge_type": "distinguishes_threshold", "from": "CLM-002", "to": "CLM-009", "tension_id": "TEN-005" }, { "edge_type": "distinguishes_threshold", "from": "CLM-005", "to": "CLM-002", "tension_id": "TEN-006" }, { "edge_type": "qualified_by", "from": "CLM-003", "to": "CLM-010", "tension_id": "TEN-007" }, { "edge_type": "constrained_by", "from": "CLM-007", "to": "CLM-008", "tension_id": "TEN-008" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-01", "to": "STUDY:leadership-loss" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-02", "to": "STUDY:leadership-loss" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-03", "to": "STUDY:contested-succession" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-04", "to": "STUDY:contested-succession" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-05", "to": "STUDY:contested-succession" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-06", "to": "STUDY:executive-capture" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-07", "to": "STUDY:federal-state-fracture" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-08", "to": "STUDY:federal-state-fracture" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-09", "to": "STUDY:fiscal-administrative-breakdown" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-10", "to": "STUDY:foreign-amplification" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-11", "to": "STUDY:foreign-amplification" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-12", "to": "STUDY:armed-escalation" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-13", "to": "STUDY:mass-nonviolent-paralysis" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-14", "to": "STUDY:mass-nonviolent-paralysis" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-15", "to": "STUDY:executive-capture" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-16", "to": "STUDY:security-sector-fracture" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-17", "to": "STUDY:security-sector-fracture" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-18", "to": "STUDY:security-sector-fracture" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-19", "to": "STUDY:youth-uprising-contagion" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-20", "to": "STUDY:resistance-law" }, { "edge_type": "maps_to_study", "from": "RPT-21", "to": "STUDY:resistance-law" } ], "counts": { "reports": 21, "studies": 11, "claims": 12, "tensions": 8, "open_questions": 6, "edges": 63 }, "site_release": "0.41.0", "scope_note": "This evidence graph intentionally models the 21 original scenario/source reports and their synthesis claims. The full public library contains 82 report readers; cross-collection discovery for all readers is handled by the topic, search, and relationship layers." }