<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Constraint-Analysis on The Broomstick Brief</title><link>https://broomstick.tymyrddin.dev/tags/constraint-analysis/</link><description>Recent content in Constraint-Analysis on The Broomstick Brief</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.147.3</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://broomstick.tymyrddin.dev/tags/constraint-analysis/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Reading the envelope</title><link>https://broomstick.tymyrddin.dev/posts/reading-envelope/</link><pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://broomstick.tymyrddin.dev/posts/reading-envelope/</guid><description>&lt;p>&lt;a href="https://broomstick.tymyrddin.dev/posts/reading-substrate/">Reading the Substrate&lt;/a> argued that analysis of conflict tends to read a
story first and the ground beneath it late, and that the ordering is often backwards in its emphasis: ideas set a
conflict&amp;rsquo;s direction, conditions set its reach. That was a claim using looking backwards, about explaining wars that have
already happened. A fair question is whether the same method survives being turned around to face forward. If conditions
set reach, can a reading of conditions say anything useful about what comes next?&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>