Chronic Conflict-Escalation as Dominance-Assertion Wrong Attractor: The Intensity-Ratchet Architecture, De-escalation-Blindness Basin, and the Return to Calibrated Proportional Conflict

Chronic conflict-escalation represents one of the most recognizable and destructive wrong attractors in human relational dynamics: a habitual pattern in which perceived opposition triggers an intensity-matching response that consistently exceeds de-escalation thresholds, transforming every disagreement into a dominance contest. This paper formalizes chronic conflict-escalation within the displacement dynamics framework, treating it as a stable wrong attractor W defined by the dominance-assertion drive, the intensity-ratchet mechanism, and de-escalation-blindness.

We define the ground state S^0 as calibrated proportional conflict—the capacity to engage disagreement at intensities proportional to actual significance, to de-escalate as fluidly as escalate, and to treat conflict as problem-solving rather than dominance assertion. Using a displacement cost function D() and accumulated displacement = D()\,dt, we model the basin depth as a function of dominance-orientation, the relational damage dynamics across escalation cycles, and the conditions sufficient for return to S^0.

Nine formal propositions establish the ratchet architecture, basin topology, de-escalation-blindness costs, and the return path through proportionality calibration and face-decoupled de-escalation. We argue that the return is not a reversal of escalation history but a reconstruction of the conflict relationship itself.