Mediators have learned the same lesson twice. Broad frameworks — a document that maps the whole front, sets withdrawal lines, and assigns third-party enforcement — have failed to move past the drafting stage because the parties cannot agree on who would be stationed where, or what happens when a violation is disputed. Narrower proposals survive because their scope is smaller than their enforcement problem.
A pause on grid strikes, for example, can be checked against publicly tracked outage patterns, satellite imagery of substations, and the day-by-day releases both militaries already issue. A shipping truce can be checked through port traffic, insurance filings and the maritime tracking services that brokers use. Neither of those requires a peacekeeping force or a map that both sides have signed.
The trade-off is that narrow deals do not end the war. They buy a category of civilian infrastructure a window of quiet and give the mediators a measurable compliance record to build on. When a window holds, the next proposal can be a little wider. When it fails, the failure is specific enough to argue about.