Pleased to publish a conceptual framework for assessing and measuring state-imposed forced labor (SIFL) across its global forms. To my knowledge this is the first effort of its kind, in a field that has left SIFL substantially undertheorized. "Architecture of Coercion" aims to do four things: 1. Develop a systematic way to conceptualize all global forms of SIFL based on ILO standards. 2. Examine previous ILO efforts to conceptualize SIFL and why they fall short. 3. Introduce the SIFL Categorization Matrix, a novel analytical tool that differentiates SIFL coercion mechanisms from state purposes. 4. Elaborate a three-pillar SIFL assessment methodology to assess: (i) Policy Content and Framing, (ii) State Capacity for Implementation, and (iii) Evidence of Implementation. Central to the framework is the claim that all forms of SIFL can be categorized by four mechanisms through which labor is exacted: - Internment or Imprisonment. Labor in prisons, camps, or re-education centers, where detention and confinement are the primary means of coercion. - Coercive Mobilization. Non-internment mobilization such as labor transfers or mandatory harvesting. - Compulsory Service Systems. Abuse of conscription or mandatory national service, where the legal obligation to serve is exploited to compel non-exempt work. - Compulsory Production and Procurement Systems. Typically agricultural, enforced through mandatory quotas and sub-market procurement. Two concepts do much of the analytical work in the framework: The article argues that conceptualization and measurement should focus primarily on mechanism, because mechanisms are more durable than the purposes states pursue through them: camps, transfer systems, and procurement regimes require infrastructure, personnel, and budgets that take years to build and cannot be dismantled at will. A state may recast forced labor transfers as poverty alleviation, vocational training, or counter-extremism without altering a single element of the apparatus that carries them out. Much remains to be developed, particularly on the measurement of involuntariness where states engineer participation rather than compel it visibly. I hope the framework offers a starting point for that work. The article is open access in the Journal of Human Trafficking, and I welcome comments and critique. (Article link the first comment below)