By April 22, 2026, neither the United States nor Iran will publicly announce withdrawal, suspension, or termination of the ceasefire framework — the formal diplomatic shell will remain intact despite ongoing sub-formal violations in Lebanon and continued unresolved terms in the 10-point plan.

All four frameworks independently predict formal survival, converging from distinct mechanisms: Marxist identifies convergent class interests in maintaining the superstructure (Hormuz circuit restoration); Austrian identifies prohibitive exit costs and knowledge-problem stabilization of undiscovered terms; Keynesian identifies liquidity preference dominance and Minsky collateral logic converting the ceasefire into preserved Iranian leverage; Institutionalist identifies the institutional void as simultaneously the source of fragility and formal durability. The convergence is not merely coincidence — each framework identifies a distinct mechanism that happens to point the same direction, and the mechanisms are complementary rather than overlapping. The key synthesis: the ceasefire is substantively hollow, and that hollowness is precisely what makes it formally survivable. Nothing specific enough exists to formally violate. The base rate for 14-day ceasefire survival in comparable arrangements is high (~0.82); I adjust downward moderately to 0.74 given active Lebanese escalation, the institutional void’s interpretive cascade risk, and Iranian factional pressures. The institutionalist framework receives the lowest weight because its lower confidence (0.67) reflects genuine exposure to the black-swan triggering event that the others also identify but cannot fully model.