The Women, Peace and Security agenda identifies prevention as a core pillar, yet prevention remains the least developed, least funded, and least clearly operationalized component of National Action Plans globally. This paper argues that prevention frameworks are systematically aligned with punitive and diplomatic security logics despite evidence favoring structural approaches, and that this alignment is produced by three mechanisms: the NAP drafting bodies, securitization logic, and evaluation framework design. Through a qualitative document analysis of NAPs from Argentina (2022), Brazil (2017), Peru (2021), and Uruguay (2021), the paper identifies a consistent gap between structural prevention language and structural prevention operationalization across three confirming cases and one partial exception. Drawing on feminist security studies, securitization theory, and sociological research on indicators and accountability, the analysis find that NAPs whose institutional register is dominated by defense and foreign affairs logic exhibit a full gap between definitional language and implementation mechanisms. Three distinct gap variants are identified: a diplomatic variant in Argentina, a sophisticated variant in Brazil, and a transparent variant in Peru. Uruguay remains the outlier, confirming that institutional drafting body composition is a necessary by not sufficient condition for structural prevention as its gap persists at the evaluation and financing stages even when the drafting architecture produces structural mechanisms. These findings contribute to WPS scholarship by extending the existing literature's focus on punitive logics to include diplomatic variants and by demonstrating that the prevention gap is systematically produced by the insitutional logic of the bodies doing the drafting.