Why refusal, resignation, legal review, side-switching, mutiny, and organizational fracture must be separated.
The security corpus rejects a binary loyal/defect model. Security disloyalty has multiple forms with different legal and political meanings. An isolated refusal or resignation can indicate institutional resilience; true sovereignty fracture requires organizations or chains of command to recognize incompatible civilian authorities and sustain those choices.
Legal objections, recusals, resignations, shirking, desertion, public criticism, withdrawal of support, joining an opposition, and coups are not one category.
The key discriminator is whether disagreement propagates across independent chains and becomes formal institutional recognition rather than individual conduct.
Military institutions are not constitutional arbiters of who should govern. Their relevance is whether lawful civilian command remains identifiable and commonly recognized.
Use these findings as mechanism-level synthesis. Historical cases are not templates, scenario ranges are not forecasts, and present-tense legal or institutional claims require current verification.