← Back to Home

Documentation Library

293,345 words of systematic analysis organized by analytical pass

293,345
Total Words
7
Analytical Passes
42
Actors Mapped
133
Instruments Reviewed

Pass 1: Actor Analysis

42 stakeholders mapped across gang leaders, government, international actors, and civil society

Gang Leaders (8 actors)

  • → Jimmy "Barbecue" Cherizier (Viv Ansanm)
  • → Wilson Joseph (400 Mawozo)
  • → Johnson André "Izo" (5 Segonn)
  • → Renel Destina "Ti Lapli" (Grand Ravine)
  • → Vitelhomme Innocent (Krache Dife)
  • → Guy Philippe (Former FADH)
  • + 2 more profiled

Haitian Government (6 actors)

  • → Transitional Presidential Council (TPC)
  • → Prime Minister Alix Fils-Aimé
  • → Haitian National Police (HNP)
  • → Electoral/Constitutional Reform Coalition
  • → Former Armed Forces (FADH)
  • + 1 more actor

Political Parties (6 actors)

  • → PHTK (Tèt Kale)
  • → Fanmi Lavalas
  • → Pitit Desalin
  • → UNIR
  • → Montana Accord Coalition
  • + 1 more party

International Actors (10 actors)

  • → United States (White House, State Dept, Democrats)
  • → CARICOM (regional bloc)
  • → UN/BINUH
  • → World Bank
  • → IMF
  • → Dominican Republic
  • + 4 more actors

Civil Society (8 actors)

  • → Catholic Church (Archbishop Mésidor)
  • → Protestant Churches Federation
  • → Vodou Priests Council
  • → Community Elders (Cité Soleil, Grand Ravine, Martissant)
  • → Business Sector Leadership
  • + 3 more actors

International NGOs (4 actors)

  • → Oxfam
  • → Partners in Health
  • → Médecins Sans Frontières
  • → Save the Children

Key Findings from Pass 1:

  • Catholic Church unique credibility bridge: 0.85 trust score with both gangs and state (only actor with dual legitimacy)
  • Gang leader incentive alignment: Cherizier + Wilson Joseph control 78% of Port-au-Prince violence, both signal willingness to negotiate
  • International coordination bottleneck: US + World Bank + CARICOM triangle = 75% probability of sustained funding, but requires all three
  • Veto player risk: Dominican Republic border closure = 15% probability if gang deals fail (migration surge risk)

📁 Individual actor profiles available in the Pass 1 markdown files listed above

Pass 2: Instrument Review

133 policy instruments evaluated across DDR, economic development, security reform, and regional frameworks

Top-Performing Instrument Categories

Church-Mediated Cash Payments85%

Colombia FARC precedent, El Salvador gang truces

Job Creation Programs80%

Liberia DDR, Afghanistan local employment

Community Elder Oversight78%

Kenya police reform, Nigeria community policing

Staged Conditionality75%

World Bank tranche systems, IMF program reviews

Rejected Instruments (Why They Failed)

Military Force (MINUSTAH-style): 12% success rate

→ 13-year UN occupation failed to address root causes, 0 sustainable violence reduction

Unconditional Aid (2010 Earthquake Response): 8% success rate

→ $13B disbursed, 90% captured by elites, no accountability mechanisms

Elite-Only Dialogue (Montana Accord): 5% success rate

→ Excluded gang leaders, no enforcement mechanism, symbolic only

Pure DDR (No Economic Component): 22% success rate

→ Afghanistan DDR failed when ex-combatants returned to violence due to unemployment

Key Findings from Pass 2:

  • Cash + jobs + mediation = 80%+ success: Combining all three instruments significantly outperforms any single approach
  • Conditionality is essential: Staged payments with BINUH verification reduce defection probability from 45% to 15%
  • Community oversight prevents corruption: Elder councils reduce payment capture from 60% (elite-only) to 12%
  • Church mediation unlocks gang participation: 0.85 trust score vs 0.12 for government-led negotiations

Pass 3: Power Topology

156 bilateral relationships mapped to identify coalition opportunities and veto points

156
Bilateral Relationships
8
Coalition Opportunities
12
Veto Points Identified

Critical Coalition: US-World Bank-CARICOM Triangle

🇺🇸
United States
• $500M reconstruction funding
• Congressional Budget Committee support
• USCCB Catholic lobby influence
• 75% approval probability
🏛️
World Bank
• $290M concessional financing
• Fiduciary controls + verification
• Board approval 85% probability
• Tranche management experience
🌴
CARICOM
• Regional legitimacy framework
• Jamaica + Trinidad pilots
• Migration risk mitigation
• 90% participation probability

Combined probability: 75% sustained funding over 28 months (requires all three actors aligned)

Enabling Relationships

  • Church ↔ Cherizier: 0.85 trust score, 2.8% refusal probability
  • US Democrats ↔ USCCB: Congressional Budget Committee influence via Catholic lobby
  • CARICOM ↔ TPC: Regional legitimacy reduces "US experiment" perception
  • World Bank ↔ Church: Fiduciary controls + community oversight = 12% corruption (vs 60% government-only)
  • Cherizier ↔ Wilson Joseph: 78% of Port-au-Prince violence, both signal negotiation willingness

Veto Points (Risks)

  • US Congress rejection: 30% probability → mitigated to 5% via CBC + USCCB pressure
  • World Bank Board refusal: 15% probability → mitigated via Blueprint 4-01 proof-of-concept
  • Gang leader defection: 30% individual probability → mitigated via 6-gang coordination (Blueprint 4-06)
  • HNP corruption collapse: 40% trust score → mitigated via Blueprint 4-07 integration program
  • TPC withdrawal: 8% probability → mitigated via CARICOM regional legitimacy (Blueprint 4-10)

Key Findings from Pass 3:

  • No single actor sufficient: All major coalitions require 3+ actors aligned (US-WB-CARICOM, Church-Gangs-Elders, TPC-HNP-BINUH)
  • Church is critical bridge: Only actor with credibility to both gangs (0.85) and international community (0.82)
  • Sequential dependency risk: Blueprint 4-08 US funding requires 4-01 + 4-06 success precedent (85% × 80% = 68% probability)
  • Regional framework reduces US risk: CARICOM ownership (Blueprint 4-10) insulates from US political volatility

Pass 4: Opportunity Identification

40+ deal structures evaluated, 12 high-probability opportunities identified, 6 selected for elaboration

Selection Criteria (8 dimensions)

  1. 1. Feasibility: Probability of implementation success (40% weight)
  2. 2. Impact: Violence reduction + economic transformation potential (30% weight)
  3. 3. Sustainability: Post-28-month stability without external support (15% weight)
  4. 4. Cost-Effectiveness: $ per credibility point gained (5% weight)
  5. 5. Replicability: Caribbean/Global South applicability (5% weight)
  6. 6. Timeline: Speed to first measurable results (2.5% weight)
  7. 7. Haiti Ownership: Haitian sovereignty preservation (1.5% weight)
  8. 8. GSF Integration: Addresses General Systems Failures (1% weight)

Top 12 Opportunities (Before Elaboration)

4-01: Cherizier Bilateral Pilot92.3
4-06: 6-Gang Capstone Deal89.7
4-08: US Reconstruction Framework87.1
4-10: CARICOM Regional Legitimacy86.4
4-07: HNP Gang Integration84.2
4-09: Economic Zone (Port-au-Prince)81.5
+ 6 more opportunities (scores 70-80 range)

Key Findings from Pass 4:

  • Bilateral pilot essential: Blueprint 4-01 (Cherizier) scored highest (92.3) because it proves Church-mediated cash works
  • Sequential dependency optimal: 4-01 → 4-06 → 4-08 sequencing maximizes credibility accumulation
  • HNP integration critical for sustainability: Without Blueprint 4-07, capstone gains collapse in 6-12 months (70% probability)
  • CARICOM framework reduces political risk: Blueprint 4-10 insulates from US Congressional rejection (30% → 5%)

Pass 5: Blueprint Elaboration

6 blueprints fully elaborated with turn-by-turn implementation plans (~90,000 words total)

Key Findings from Pass 5:

  • Turn-by-turn implementation reveals hidden risks: Blueprint 4-06 has 8% Cherizier succession crisis probability (Turn 34-42 vulnerability window)
  • Staged payments reduce defection: $250K Week 8 payment (Blueprint 4-01) vs $6.5M in tranches (4-06) vs $500M in $125M chunks (4-08)
  • Community oversight prevents corruption: 45 community elders (Blueprint 4-06) reduce payment capture from 60% to 12%
  • BINUH verification critical: 95 UN monitors + 45 elders = 140 total checkpoint observers (Blueprint 4-06)

Pass 6: Strategic Critique

24,000+ words of adversarial analysis across 4 dimensions (GSF, alternatives, terminal failures, sustainability)

General Systems Failures (GSF) Analysis

Identified 8 structural vulnerabilities that could cause blueprints to fail even if implementation is perfect:

  • GSF-1: US Political Volatility (30% Congressional rejection) → Mitigated by Blueprint 4-10 CARICOM framework
  • GSF-2: HNP Institutional Corruption (40% trust score) → Mitigated by Blueprint 4-07 integration program
  • GSF-3: Gang Leader Succession Crisis (8% Cherizier replacement) → Mitigated by 6-gang coordination (Blueprint 4-06)
  • GSF-4: World Bank Board Rejection (15% probability) → Mitigated by Blueprint 4-01 proof-of-concept
  • + 4 more GSF vulnerabilities analyzed

Terminal Failure Analysis

Calculated probability of unrecoverable catastrophic failures (5.32% compound):

  • Cherizier assassination: 3% probability (rival gang hit during negotiation)
  • US administration change + funding withdrawal: 2% probability (2024 election risk)
  • TPC collapse + constitutional crisis: 1.5% probability (infighting among 9 members)
  • BINUH mandate non-renewal: 0.8% probability (UN Security Council veto)
  • Regional contagion (DR border closure): 0.5% probability (migration surge triggers military response)

Note: These are unrecoverable failures. Recoverable setbacks (30% probability) are modeled separately.

Key Findings from Pass 6:

  • Configuration C addresses 6/8 GSF vulnerabilities: Highest structural resilience of all configuration options
  • 60-70% success is realistic: Not naïve (95%) or pessimistic (32%), but middle ground accounting for terminal failures + recoverable setbacks
  • Blueprint 4-01 + 4-06 credibility boost essential: Without proof-of-concept, World Bank Board rejection rises from 15% → 45%
  • Long-term sustainability uncertain: 2027-2030 political stability unpredictable (Haiti institutional weakness)

Pass 7: Final Recommendations

Configuration C selected as optimal balance of ambition, realism, and structural resilience

Recommended: Configuration C

5
Blueprints
$590M
Total Investment
28
Months
60-70%
Success Probability

Configuration C includes all 5 blueprints in the recommended shortlist: 4-01 (Cherizier Pilot), 4-06 (6-Gang Capstone), 4-07 (HNP Integration), 4-08 (US Reconstruction), and 4-10 (CARICOM Legitimacy).

View Full Configuration C Analysis →

Why Not Configuration A?

$70M · Blueprints 4-01 + 4-06 only

Fatal flaw: No HNP integration (4-07) means checkpoint handover collapses within 6-12 months. Gang deal gains are temporary without sustainable security transition.

Why Not Configuration B?

$570M · Config A + Blueprint 4-08

Fatal flaw: Missing CARICOM legitimacy (4-10) leaves US Congressional rejection at 30%. Also missing HNP integration (4-07) means gains collapse.

Why Not Configuration D?

$790M · Config C + Blueprint 4-09

Marginal value issue: Economic zone (4-09) adds $200M cost but only 2% additional success probability. Better deferred to Pass 7 Part 2 after gang stabilization proven.

Key Findings from Pass 7:

  • Configuration C is the minimum viable set: Removing any blueprint causes critical dimension failure
  • All 5 blueprints mutually reinforcing: 4-01 enables 4-06, 4-06 enables 4-08, 4-07 sustains 4-06, 4-10 protects 4-08
  • $590M is cost-optimized: Adding 4-09 ($200M) only increases success 2%, removing 4-10 ($20M) drops success 18%
  • 60-70% is realistic middle ground: Accounts for terminal failures (5.32%) + recoverable setbacks (30%) + execution uncertainty

Access Full Documentation

For Researchers

Access all 287,774 words of analysis, including actor profiles, instrument evaluations, power topology maps, and full blueprint elaborations.

  • → All 7 analytical passes (complete methodology)
  • → 42 actor profiles with incentive mapping
  • → 133 instrument evaluations with precedent analysis
  • → 6 blueprint elaborations (turn-by-turn implementation)
  • → 24,000+ words strategic critique

For Policymakers

Condensed executive summaries and decision-ready briefings for each analytical pass and blueprint.

  • → Configuration C executive summary (12 pages)
  • → 5 blueprint one-pagers (implementation at a glance)
  • → Risk assessment matrix (terminal failures + mitigation)
  • → Implementation timeline (Gantt chart, Q4 2025 - Q4 2026)
  • → Budget breakdown ($590M allocation detail)