Yes.
I think what you tend to have in a mission mandate is a broad political agenda that talks about national level reforms building on a peace agreement, the kind of things you see in Congo in 2002 or in the peace agreement that was signed after the election in Mali. Then you have a series of operational tasks that the mission tends to do: neutralizing armed groups, DDR, a whole range of support to humanitarian aid and all of these other things.
What can happen in missions is that those two issues can become bifurcated, and you can think about these operational issues as ends in themselves and keep turning the wheel. But the point is that what we need to do is think about how they contribute to that political objective. Why are you doing DDR with armed groups? It's because that's the outcome of the peace agreement you're looking for.
I think where the UN hasn't necessarily done strategic-level planning in the way that aligns with the HIPPO report is the political tends to sit very high up and often the operational doesn't tend to lead towards it, and you get stuck in situations like Congo, where we have a neutralization of armed groups mandate but I don't see that directly contributing to the political objectives of the mission, per se.
You have a follow-up question; I can tell.