| Dominant model | Executive-decisionist | Expert-commissioned | Dialogic-negotiated |
| Authoritative diagnosis | Private management failure, financial risk, and state responsibility | Low contribution density, gender inequality, inadequate solidarity, and institutional weakness | Exclusion caused by strict contribution requirements and interrupted careers |
| Main knowledge actors | Executive, ANSES, ministries, congressional committees, unions, external experts | Presidential council, ministries, public agencies, civil society, industry, international organizations | Government agencies, BPS, university, workers, employers, retirees, AFAPs, international experts |
| Point of political closure | Before broad consultation, with later debate over safeguards | After commission report and ministerial filtering | Through partial agreements translated into an incremental bill |
| Principal instrument | Elimination of AFJPs and public recentralization through SIPA | Solidarity pillar and institutional layering over individual capitalization | Flexible eligibility, gender credits, and protection for older displaced workers |
| Main advantage | Speed and clear political responsibility | Integrated diagnosis and coherent policy package | Ownership, implementation knowledge, and institutional fit |
| Main limitation | Limited ex ante option contestation and weaker cross-party stability | Consensus can conceal conflict and preserve bounded alternatives | Compromise narrows scope and may privilege organized actors |