“Overall narrative remains internally inconsistent but not yet irreconcilable. Legal framing (map) that the operation is not a “war” is tenuous and collides with both congressional-authorization norms and public perception (mood). Machine-pillar dissent (Kent resignation) amplifies reputational risk but does not yet signal broad institutional fracture. Mechanics shows simultaneous claims of progress and shrinking diplomatic window—typical fog-of-war ambiguity rather than evidence of strategic collapse. Net assessment: political and institutional friction is rising, public legitimacy is eroding, but operational control claims persist. Final risk posture: Elevated—credible chance of policy or narrative failure if legal justification and strategic goals are not clarified within one media cycle (≈24-48 h).”