The 48-hour sequence from June 27 to June 28 was the most kinetically intense period in the 122-day Hormuz closure. CENTCOM struck Iran twice - first hitting missile and drone storage plus coastal radar, then expanding to surveillance infrastructure, communications, air defense, and minelayer capabilities. The IRGC struck a laden VLCC carrying 2 million barrels. Iran launched ballistic missiles and drones at Bahrain and Kuwait, the first Iranian kinetic action against US-allied Gulf sovereigns in the crisis. By June 29, both sides had stood down.

Prior scenario modeling (the June 27 "After the Strike" report) gave this outcome less than 5% probability. The four modeled paths - ABSORB, PROXY, ENFORCE, RETALIATE - treated the exchange as a decision tree that one side controlled. What materialized was something different: both sides escalated to near their respective ceilings in a 36-hour window, then stepped back simultaneously. That mutual stand-down is the analytical event of Day 122, and its implications run from diplomatic through financial through physical.

Three questions determine what Day 122 means for the remainder of the 60-day Burgenstock roadmap. Why did both sides choose the stand-down? Does Brent at $72-72.5 correctly price what just happened? And does "open" mean "safe to transit"?