Dependency profile
- Dependency owner
- Flag states, operators, ports and service providers
- Affected population
- Trade, coastal communities, mariners, environment
- Substitutability
- CONSTRAINED
- Switching cost
- HIGH
- Replacement time
- Scenario-specific; must be measured and tested, not assumed.
- Concentration level
- HIGH
- Non-Domination Test
- PASS_REQUIREMENTS_DEFINED
Abuse and failure paths
Abuse: Chokepoint control, surveillance, port exclusion, opaque routing.
Failure: Fleet software failure, communications loss, collision, storm, insurance exit.
Required exit and alternatives
Exit: Multiple operators, port alternatives, crewed/manual fallback, lawful inspection.
Portability: Portable cargo, manifests, data and control interfaces.
Interoperability: IMO-compatible navigation, safety, reporting and communications.
Independent alternative: Independent carriers, ports and emergency tow/rescue.
Emergency handback: Enter safe state, notify flag/coastal authorities, hand back to lawful control.
Disconfirming evidence
- Failed exit drill
- Unavailable independent alternative
- Retaliation for attempted exit
- Material portability gap
- Undisclosed common-mode dependency
Truth boundary
Static risk-governance record. It does not prove an operational service, market share, capacity, dependency, alternative, or successful exit drill.
Authority and record status
Responsible authority: Flag and port-state authorities.
Static concentration-governance record; no operational alternative or exit drill is proven.
Revision date: . Public corrections may be initiated through the diplomatic contact route.