No formal vote of no confidence or leadership contest nomination will be publicly submitted against Keir Starmer as Labour leader before 2026-05-24.

Three of four frameworks independently predict no formal challenge within 14 days, converging on coordination failure as the dominant mechanism. The Institutionalist framework receives the highest weight (0.40) given its direct purchase on Labour’s specific procedural architecture: the 20% threshold, career-penalty structure, and 14-day compression all create prohibitive transaction costs that were deliberately encoded into the 2022 rule changes. The Austrian knowledge problem explains the mechanism of failure — each potential nominator lacks information about others’ private commitments and faces asymmetric downside (career destruction if challenge fails, distributed benefit if it succeeds), producing individually rational but collectively paralysing wait-and-signal equilibrium. The Marxist analysis confirms the apparatus absorbs dissent into managed pressure; the bureaucratic grammar converts rupture potential into petition-mode posturing. The Keynesian framework is the sole dissent, and is weighted at 0.15 as a genuine uncertainty signal rather than noise: the Monday deadline functions as a real coordination device and beauty-contest dynamics can flip faster than structural analysis implies. This Keynesian risk is incorporated into the uncertainty band — confidence of 0.82 rather than 0.90+. Base rate of ~7% for formal challenge triggers in any 14-day post-shock window is adjusted upward to ~22% given the specific coordination signals present (Monday threat, local election focal event), then pulled back to ~18% given the absence of shadow cabinet defections, the steepness of the coordination curve at the required threshold, and the anti-cascade institutional architecture. Resulting confidence that no formal challenge is triggered: 0.82.