Abstract
An adversary copies your encrypted traffic today and waits for a quantum computer to decrypt it later. How exposed are you? We show that the functional form of the answer is not merely a calibration choice -- it is structurally justified by three assumptions about adversarial production and value-decay dynamics. Under those assumptions, the HNDL compromise probability factorises into a temporal hazard, a multiplicative cryptographic-vulnerability and operational-exposure term, and a saturation denominator governed by the defense-attack intensity ratio; the marginal sensitivity to each dimension is endogenous to the organisation's position in the vulnerability-exposure plane, not a fixed global constant. Additive scoring frameworks cannot reproduce this structure because the interaction between cryptographic vulnerability and operational exposure is absent by construction, regardless of calibration. The resulting framework provides a structurally grounded basis for operational HNDL exposure prioritisation under partial observability.