The Hegseth NATO posture review will NOT produce a formal US DoD announcement of a net reduction of ≥5,000 troops stationed in Europe, or a restructuring of NATO commitments reducing US forward-basing obligations, by December 31, 2026.

Four independent frameworks produce unanimous directional agreement (no formal announcement), which is the primary confidence signal — convergent results from divergent causal theories substantially outweigh any single-framework finding. The institutionalist framework carries the highest weight (0.45) because it provides the most mechanistically granular account that maps directly onto the observable procedural sequence required for the question’s threshold: SOFA lock-in, bureaucratic absorption of political pressure via the review process itself, congressional notification requirements, and EUCOM institutional resistance through procedural veto points. The Marxist seigniorage insight — that the withdrawal threat is more extractively valuable unmaterialized, and that formalizing it liquidates the threat-currency — provides a unique mechanism absent from the other frameworks. The Austrian price-signal account explains why European reallocation is already proceeding without formal US announcement, making the commitment redundant from an outcomes standpoint. Keynesian fundamental-uncertainty analysis reinforces institutional inertia under active geopolitical stress. Base rate: formal DoD announcements of net European troop reductions ≥5,000 within any 18-month window run approximately 15% historically (Trump 2020 is the only modern instance, and that instance was contested and reversed within one electoral cycle). The unanimous framework convergence adjusts the ‘no announcement’ probability from 85% baseline to 83% after accounting for residual uncertainty from executive fiat capacity, exogenous shock potential, and framing-arbitrage risk (a ‘repositioning’ announcement satisfying the threshold).