While I see value in the “General; specific” form of belief, I don’t think it’s mandatory. Beliefs don’t need an end-point as long as they’re meaty, require actino, and can be challenged. Protecting things works there. Beliefs as written are often shorthand, and if a character is acting to protect the MacGuffin they should get Fate whether or not there are explicit sub-clauses. If a culmination is reached, there should be Persona.
“Bishop Olm is the best hope for reform in the corrupt Church, and I must defend him from his enemies and detractors!” is a belief I’ve had in play. It has no end, except when the player decides the character is done. It’s not necessarily clear when the belief is written when, or if, it will be done. Yes, it could have specific modifications. “…so I will discredit Cardinal Thierre,” “…so I will ensure we have spies in the household of the Constable,” “…so I will fend off the assassins sent by Bishop Hosca.” All possible, but not necessary. Those should all be clear enough as parts of the belief without writing them out.
What I’m saying is that a Belief without an end has segments, and when the story makes it clear that a substantial sub-belief was achieved you give persona. The GM should not be in the business of punishing players for not getting the minutiae of beliefs right. Clarity of intent and driving the game are much more worth pushing, enforcing, and rewarding than belief-lawyering.