Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Repair, Capacity, and Collapse: A Mechanistic Early-Warning Model of Political Rupture Cover

Repair, Capacity, and Collapse: A Mechanistic Early-Warning Model of Political Rupture

Stability: International Journal of Security and Development
Volume 13 (2026): Issue 1
By:   
Open Access
|Jun 2026
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Conceptual Flow Model of the Contradiction Debt Mechanism.

Table 1

R/V thresholds and typical time to rupture.

R/V RANGETYPICAL TIME TO RUPTUREINTERPRETATION
< 0.301–2 quartersImminent breakdown
0.30–0.452–3 quartersHigh risk
0.45–0.603–6 quartersModerate strain
≥ 0.60≥ 8 quartersStable/resilient
Table 2

Violation domains (V), definitions, and indicative sources.

DOMAININDICATIVE SOURCESEXAMPLES OF VIOLATIONSCODING RULE (0–1)
Security/RightsACLED; HRW; UN SC reportsextrajudicial killings, repression, armed insurgency0 = none → 1 = systematic
Rule of Law/ElectionsAmnesty; WJP; UNHRCpoliticized courts, manipulated elections0 = credible → 1 = annulled
Center–Local RelationsICG; constitutionsautonomy disputes, resource contests0 = cooperative → 1 = breakdown
Narrative LegitimacyFreedom House; RSF; V-Demcensorship, propaganda, disinformation0 = free media → 1 = systemic control
Humanitarian ObligationsUN OCHA; WHO; World Bankservice failures, famine, disaster neglect0 = adequate → 1 = collapse
Table 3

Repair dimensions (R) and scoring criteria.

MECHANISMDEFINITIONINDICATORS/SOURCES
Acknowledgmentpublic recognition of grievancesspeeches, official inquiries
Reformstructural policy changelegislative acts, judicial reform
Compensationmaterial or symbolic redressreparations, truth commissions
Inclusivityexpanded participationcoalition building, minority representation
Implementation Fidelityfollow-through on reformsenforcement rates, budget execution
Table 4

R/V bands and forecast time windows.

R/V BANDFORECAST HORIZONINTERPRETATION
< 0.301–2 quartersimminent rupture
0.30–0.452–3 quartershigh risk
0.45–0.603–6 quartersmoderate strain
≥ 0.60≥ 8 quartersstable
Table 5

Comparative discrimination and calibration metrics.

MODELAUROCAUPRCBRIERMEAN LEAD-TIME ERROR (QUARTERS)
Contradiction Debt (CD)0.540.290.19± 1.0
ACLED Event Rate0.600.340.22± 1.8
Early Warning Project (EWP)0.560.310.24± 2.0
Fragile States Index (FSI)0.460.250.23± 3.5
V-Dem Autocratization Index0.490.270.22± 2.5
Table 6

Logistic regression predicting rupture within two quarters.

PREDICTORCOEFFICIENT (β)STD. ERRORP-VALUE
R/V Ratio–2.430.920.021
ACLED Rate1.170.740.12
FSI0.650.830.42
V-Dem Autocratization0.520.790.49
EWP Probability1.060.810.18
Constant–0.410.68—
Figure 2

Precision–Recall Curves Across Models.

Figure 3

Decision-Curve Analysis.

Figure 4

Lead-Time Error Distribution.

Table 7

Retrospective benchmark cases: predicted horizons and observed outcomes.

CASER/VPREDICTED HORIZONOBSERVED OUTCOME
Tunisia (2011)0.221–2 quartersRupture occurred within one quarter.
Lebanon (2019)0.382–3 quartersGovernment collapse followed in two quarters.
Myanmar (2021)0.26ImminentCoup occurred within one quarter.
Sri Lanka (2022)0.281–2 quartersCollapse occurred within one quarter.
Nepal (2025)0.24ImminentBreakdown followed within weeks.
Figure 5

Critical Curvature Zone: Stability Surface.

Table A1

Violation domains, indicative sources, and anchor endpoints.

DOMAININDICATIVE SOURCESEXAMPLE VIOLATIONSCODING RULE (0–1)
Security/RightsACLED; HRW; UN Security Council reportsExtrajudicial killings, repression, armed insurgency0 = none → 1 = systematic
Rule of Law/ElectionsAmnesty; WJP; UNHRCPoliticized courts, manipulated elections0 = credible → 1 = annulled
Center–Local RelationsICG; constitutional textsAutonomy disputes, resource contests0 = cooperative → 1 = breakdown
Narrative LegitimacyFreedom House; RSF; V-DemCensorship, propaganda, disinformation0 = free media → 1 = systemic control
Humanitarian ObligationsUN OCHA; WHO; World BankService failures, famine, disaster neglect0 = adequate → 1 = collapse
Table A2

General intensity anchors for scope × severity (applied within each domain).

SCOREANCHOR DESCRIPTION
0.00No observable violation in the quarter; obligations substantially met.
0.25Isolated or localized incidents; limited population affected; reversible.
0.50Recurrent or regionally concentrated violations; moderate harm; contested but not systemic.
0.75Widespread or escalating violations; severe harm; weak or absent accountability.
1.00Systematic, nationwide violation; severe and sustained harm; institutional impunity.
Table A3

Repair mechanisms, definitions, and indicators.

MECHANISMDEFINITIONINDICATORS/SOURCES
AcknowledgmentPublic recognition of grievancesSpeeches, official inquiries
ReformStructural policy changeLegislative acts, judicial reform
CompensationMaterial or symbolic redressReparations, truth commissions
InclusivityExpanded participationCoalition building, minority representation
Implementation FidelityFollow-through on announced reformsEnforcement rates, budget execution
Table A4

General anchors for repair effectiveness (applied within each mechanism).

SCOREANCHOR DESCRIPTION
0.00No corrective action; grievance denied or ignored.
0.25Rhetorical or symbolic gesture with no implementation.
0.50Partial action; announced reforms with weak or uneven implementation.
0.75Substantive action implemented across most of the affected domain.
1.00Full, credible, and verifiably implemented repair restoring the obligation.
Table A5

Capacity sub-factors and sources.

FACTORCONSTRUCTSOURCE
L — LegitimacyPopular trust in governmentV-Dem (“trust in government”)
E — Elite CohesionUnity/fragmentation of the governing eliteICG reports; expert coding
K — Institutional CapacityAdministrative and judicial competenceWorld Bank Governance Indicators
Table A6

R/V bands and forecast horizons.

R/V BANDFORECAST HORIZONINTERPRETATION
<0.301–2 quartersImminent rupture
0.30–0.452–3 quartersHigh risk
0.45–0.603–6 quartersModerate strain
≥0.60≥8 quartersStable/resilient
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33534/sta.1042 | Journal eISSN: 2165-2627
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 2 - 2
Submitted on: Oct 22, 2025
Accepted on: Jun 7, 2026
Published on: Jun 16, 2026
Published by: Department of Peace Studies and International Development, University of Bradford
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2026 David Koepsell, published by Department of Peace Studies and International Development, University of Bradford
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 13 (2026): Issue 1
Previous article