= Solution
A formal two-electron <reductive elimination> couples two anionic, mutually cis donors and reduces Ti(IV) to Ti(II). There are two chemically distinct couplings: \b[Cl–Cl elimination gives $\mathrm{Cl_2}$], leaving a Ti(II) complex with the intact anionic O,N,P ligand and one chloride; \b[O–Cl elimination gives an aryl hypochlorite group, $\mathrm{ArOCl}$], breaking the original Ti–O attachment and leaving a Ti(II) center coordinated by N,P and two chlorides. The latter product can remain tethered through the N,P part of the same ligand; it is not necessarily a free small molecule. The starting facial arrangement supplies cis pairs of both kinds.
\b[Cl–Cl coupling is the more plausible of these formal alternatives], because it retains the particularly strong early-metal Ti–O interaction and makes the stronger Cl–Cl rather than relatively weak O–Cl bond. Both alternatives reduce the valence count by two, from 12 to 10, so the <18-electron rule> does not choose between them. Neither should be asserted to occur readily: reduction of a stable, oxophilic $d^0$ Ti(IV) center is intrinsically unfavorable. Coupling a chloride to the neutral amine or phosphine is not the ordinary elimination of two X-type ligands. <proton> transfer between N–H and <oxygen>, if it occurred, would instead be <acid-base chemistry>, not automatically a two-electron <reductive elimination>.
Back to article page
