Research graph · Cross-corpus evidence

Keep the qualifications attached.

Twelve synthesis claims connect the 21 original scenario/source reports. This graph is intentionally narrower than the 82-reader public library: it preserves the original scenario authority layer, while the site-wide relationship graph and topic hubs connect the expanded corpus. Edges distinguish support, qualification, transfer limits, threshold distinctions, and uncertainty so one report cannot silently flatten another.

Claims

Cross-corpus synthesis nodes

Each node routes back to exact report headings. Report bodies remain authoritative.

CLM-002 · cross corpus convergence

Durable rival sovereignty requires compound institutional fracture across legal finality, command recognition, administration, finance, and off-ramps.

Confidence: high_mechanism_confidence

Source routes

CLM-005 · cross corpus convergence

Executive aggrandizement can be incremental while constitutional forms persist; complete regime transformation requires multiple checking institutions to lose effective constraint.

Confidence: high_conceptual_medium_forecast_confidence

Source routes

CLM-008 · cross corpus convergence

Violent escalation sharply increases humanitarian, economic, and civil-liberties costs and does not guarantee the political outcome intended by the original coalition.

Confidence: high_directional_low_numeric_confidence

Source routes

CLM-010 · cross corpus convergence

Financial settlement, appropriations, delegated authority, contracts, and enforceable legal claims are hidden stabilizers of political order.

Confidence: high_structural_confidence

Source routes

Qualifications

Tensions without false contradiction

These edges preserve scope limits that are easy to lose in short summaries.

TEN-001 · qualified by

historical rationale vs positive law

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.

CLM-007 → CLM-007

TEN-002 · limits inference

foreign capability vs demonstrated effect

Evidence of sponsorship, coordination, reach, or technical capability is not by itself evidence that a political decision changed because of the operation.

CLM-006 → CLM-006

TEN-003 · raises uncertainty

legal command structure vs behavioral uncertainty

The legal architecture is comparatively knowable; behavior under an unprecedented rival-authority crisis remains much less certain.

CLM-004 → CLM-012

TEN-004 · limits transferability

civil-resistance success literature vs U.S. transferability

Comparative success rates and defection mechanisms illuminate pathways but do not supply a validated U.S. probability or participation threshold.

CLM-001 → CLM-012

TEN-005 · distinguishes threshold

state noncooperation vs rival sovereignty

Aggressive state resistance can remain inside constitutional federalism when common adjudication and institutional off-ramps still function.

CLM-002 → CLM-009

TEN-006 · distinguishes threshold

executive dominance vs regime transformation

Winning institutional battles or centralizing administration is not equivalent to durable regime replacement; the latter requires broader constraint failure.

CLM-005 → CLM-002

TEN-007 · qualified by

continuity survival vs cumulative degradation

Continuity can preserve legal existence and minimum functions while prolonged fiscal, staffing, supply, or communications degradation still accumulates meaningful damage.

CLM-003 → CLM-010

TEN-008 · constrained by

armed backstop theory vs outcome costs

Political theory about last-resort resistance does not establish tactical feasibility, legal immunity, civilian protection, or a beneficial post-conflict order.

CLM-007 → CLM-008

Open questions

What the corpus does not resolve

Uncertainty is part of the evidence model, not a blank to fill with confidence theater.

Q-001 · unresolved

What validated quantitative threshold, if any, marks transition from widespread political stress to durable competing sovereignty in the contemporary United States?

This remains an explicit research gap; the corpus does not supply a validated answer.

Q-002 · unresolved

How would unit-level security organizations actually behave under sustained, genuinely ambiguous civilian authority?

This remains an explicit research gap; the corpus does not supply a validated answer.

Q-003 · unresolved

How much observed foreign amplification converts into material changes in domestic institutional behavior?

This remains an explicit research gap; the corpus does not supply a validated answer.

Q-004 · unresolved

How quickly can multiple independent U.S. institutional systems recover a common authority chain after a prolonged compound crisis?

This remains an explicit research gap; the corpus does not supply a validated answer.

Q-005 · unresolved

How transferable are historical campaign success rates and foreign comparative cases to a contemporary federal constitutional democracy with U.S.-specific institutions?

This remains an explicit research gap; the corpus does not supply a validated answer.

Q-006 · unresolved

Which forms of institutional restoration persist after a crisis versus merely re-establish formal legality while leaving degraded capacity or trust?

This remains an explicit research gap; the corpus does not supply a validated answer.