By June 13, 2026, the US and Iran will not produce any formal written framework document with binding commitments or an enforceable verification mechanism; the post-60-day-truce period will revert to another extension-renewal or ambiguous communiqué that contains no operational enforcement architecture.

Four independent frameworks converge on the same prediction through structurally distinct mechanisms, which is the primary confidence-booster — the prediction is robust to any single framework’s blind spots. The Institutionalist framework earns the highest tradition weight (0.35) by providing the most concrete mechanism: asymmetric transaction costs from JCPOA exit, named veto players, verification commons failure, and the Singapore Summit as the empirical ceiling. The Marxist framework (0.30) is assigned second weight for providing the structural explanation of WHY non-resolution serves positive material functions on both sides — not merely a coordination failure but an actively reproduced equilibrium. Austrian (0.20) contributes the preference-revelation cost mechanism and frames extensions as spontaneous order. Keynesian (0.15) contributes liquidity preference and the Minsky stability trap, confirming through independent mechanism. The base rate for formal written diplomatic frameworks with enforcement architecture emerging within any 13-day negotiating window, given US-Iran historical precedent, is approximately 9%. Framework analysis does not raise this significantly — the current conjuncture lacks the favorable conditions (Rouhani reformist mandate, Obama coalition, EU commercial pressure) that enabled even the JCPOA’s multi-year path. The sole meaningful upward pressure is Trump’s idiosyncratic deal-aesthetic and the operationalization ambiguity of ‘joint statement of principles’; this accounts for the 13% residual probability. A Singapore-style document — formally signed, substantively a forward amulet with no verification — is the modal path for that residual.