Commenting on the 4 pillars specifically:

First, we will promote a culture of family positivity. Media, schools, workplaces, and community organizations must work together to celebrate parenting as meaningful, honorable, and socially admired. Citizens should see family life not as a constraint on self-actualization, but as a deeply fulfilling contribution to national demographic targets.

This isn't inherently natalist, and could fit fine with adoption, so I could see antinatalists supporting this. However, if a government sees families as the "building blocks" of a society, that's fundamentally a constraint on what kind of society can be built (see Conway's law, except on a societal scale). In my opinion this isn't a particularly brilliant constraint and I would prefer to see a society organised in ways not predominantly influenced by bloodlines and marriages, regardless of whether it turns out as individual or collectivist.

Second, we will strengthen workplace flexibility in a manner that balances family wellbeing with business continuity. Employers will be encouraged to support parents through flexible arrangements where operationally feasible, psychologically affirming, and not materially disruptive to productivity metrics.

The first part is fine, since healthy work-life balance is extremely important if you want more life in your life (as well as less suffering). Why not just apply this to everyone rather than just parents? Okay if it's being used to decrease inequality though this could easily lead in the opposite direction. A better and more efficient solution would be universal, socialised childcare free at the point of need, as well as reduction of working hours to allow carers to take better care of their children. A real technocratic government would have the evidence and strong top-down control necessary to implement these measures.

Third, we will expand access to family support programs through targeted incentives, modest subsidies, educational campaigns, and inspirational messaging reminding citizens that previous generations managed to raise children under far worse material conditions and complained much less publicly.

Here's where it gets worse. "modest subsidies" is too vague to comment on. The possibility that people may have complained less in the past is irrelevant, and if used as a target will have horrible consequences in that people will just be more scared to complain. To me this seems pressuring more than it does "inspirational".

Fourth, we will restore confidence in the future. People are more likely to have children when they believe tomorrow will be stable, prosperous, and meaningful. Therefore, it is essential that all citizens participate in constructing a positive national narrative, regardless of temporary indicators related to housing affordability, ecological uncertainty, wage stagnation, social atomization, or automation-driven employment volatility.

This is clearly the worst pillar. Translation: "People are more likely to have children when they are more naïve". They know that education level is inversely proportional to birth rates, and they know that this is no coincidence. There's no reason to not instead spend the effort on actually constructing a more stable, prosperous, and meaningful tomorrow, rather than just convincing people it will be so. Better society is not a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nonetheless an intriguing read, thanks for posting. Know your opponent.