The first group concerns knowledge: a certified 2026 baseline and a carve-out map covering people, assets, contracts, intellectual property, systems and shared services. The second concerns industrial authority: binding site missions in Italy, allocation of product lines, design authority and bid leadership, plus a five-year plan for backlog, pipeline, R&D, capex and capacity utilisation under both base and downside cases.
The third group concerns how efficiencies are created and distributed: country-level separation of cost and revenue synergies, early training and priority for redeployment, a supplier charter covering qualification, orders, payment terms and access to tenders, and Italian control points for IP, sovereign data, cyber, export control and critical infrastructure.
Finally, governance and remedies are required: a monitoring committee involving companies, government and worker representatives; thresholds triggering escalation; independent verification; and a moratorium on Bromo-related involuntary exits until redeployment, training and voluntary solutions have been exhausted. The protocol is credible only when each promise is tied to a metric and a consequence.
A safeguard is credible when it specifies scope, baseline, KPI, owner, duration and remedy.
