LEX ASTRA ACADEMY CT 380 / Adaptive leadership and incident review Lex Astra · Command Studies programme Teaching edition 2956.3 / Hybrid ———————————————————————————————————————————————— LEARNER WORKSHEET For watch leaders learning to replan and conduct fair incident reviews. This is a private working copy. Downloading submits nothing and records no completion. Use exercise identifiers, not private player information. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SESSION DETAILS Learner identifier: ____________________________________________________________ Instructor / assessor: ____________________________________________________________ Session date / agreed role or variant: ____________________________________________________________ Vessel, configuration and equipment: ____________________________________________________________ LIVE build / capability test date / tested by (if practical): ____________________________________________________________ Stop signal / recovery contact / communication arrangement: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— PURPOSE Recognize when a plan has failed, redistribute the work and write a review that leads to a specific correction. COURSE CONTEXT Command Studies requires the leader to examine the instructions they supplied. A common crew error may reveal a common source rather than several independent failures. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— ENTRY Complete: CT 340 One completed specialist certificate or an independently approved equivalent outcome portfolio, with evidence reference and reviewer. Reasoned command recommendation or independent entry review; no insider sponsor is required. Equipment: A participating crew, evaluator and independent stop authority. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CASE: The crew followed the wrong brief 1. The issued brief names Receiving A. A planning note names B but was never circulated. 2. The crew correctly read back A and began the movement. 3. The leader discovers the mismatch while one crew member reports overload. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND GAME SKILLS Incident recovery without hindsight or blind resets Practical instruction revision 1 / 9 October 2026 Stabilise and preserve the state After a failed approach, casualty or cargo incident, account for people and move to a recoverable condition before investigating. Record the current flight mode, location, component or medical indications and latest command. Do not destroy useful evidence by repeatedly toggling every system or overwriting the manifest to make it balance. Distinguish operational error from game interruption Reconstruct what the player could see at the time. Compare their action with the available indication and the instructed procedure, not with knowledge acquired later. A delayed marker or unusable interaction may invalidate part of the observation without proving poor judgment. Test a suspected fault with a small, controlled reproduction only when safe. Convert the finding into another performance Replace “communicate better” with a repeatable action such as calling the go-around before the descent limit or confirming a bed tier before loading. Rehearse the corrected action under the same relevant conditions, then vary one condition to check transfer. Preserve unresolved causes instead of presenting a confident but unsupported explanation. PRACTICAL DRILL Review a recorded or instructor-supplied game incident, distinguish observations from later knowledge, and run a small corrective rehearsal without recreating the original uncontrolled hazard. OBSERVED-SKILL CHECKS Immediate recovery precedes analysis. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ The finding uses information available at the original decision point. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ The corrective action is observable and demonstrated in a fresh rehearsal. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Apply the technical checks in the agreed role. Discussion and simulation do not certify live handling; Crew Support evidence does not confer Pilot qualification. GAME REFERENCES The linked pages were read for this revision. Community references mix release eras; each source note identifies what is used and what is excluded. Technical explanations below are an Academy synthesis, and drills and performance checks are Academy-designed. Before practice, compare the named actions with the installed LIVE build and actual equipment. Bind actions by name rather than copying old default keys. Research is not an in-game validation. Star Citizen Wiki — Controls https://starcitizen.tools/Guide:Controls Control categories, movement axes and targeting concepts. The page contains legacy bindings and flight-system descriptions; use the installed game’s bindings, not its key table. Star Citizen Wiki — Medical https://starcitizen.tools/Medical Body-part injuries, Hemozal, symptom medication, BDL, bed tiers and regeneration. Ship tables, resource costs and ranges change; inspect the actual bed and tool. Star Citizen Wiki — Engineering https://starcitizen.tools/Engineering Engineering terminals, components, fuses, heat and fires. This community overview is incomplete; verify each interaction and vessel’s support in the session. RSI — Official patch notes https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes Primary release index for the instructor’s build check, not evidence that a particular interaction has been tested by the Academy. Official LIVE release check: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 1: Name the assumption that failed Compare the observed situation with the plan’s required conditions. State which condition no longer holds and what work it affects. Continuing to protect the appearance of success gives the next watch a larger problem. Reconstruct what was knowable at each decision point. Later evidence may explain the outcome without having been available to the original leader. Judge the decision against the information, authority and alternatives then present; otherwise incident review teaches hindsight rather than a method for making better decisions under uncertainty. Practise: Identify the point where the original plan stops fitting. Ready when: You cite the observation and the relevant change or stop condition. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 2: Reassign with the receiving crew Ask what the crew can now cover, then reduce or redistribute tasks. Give each changed assignment a clear limit and confirm acceptance. Leave room for another challenge; revising the plan once does not make it immune to new evidence. Replanning must account for the cost of changing direction. Ask what work is already committed, which tasks can pause and who must receive the amendment first. Protect a channel for urgent reports while issuing the revised brief so the act of reorganising does not make the crew blind to another developing limitation. Practise: Rebrief after a resource loss and overload warning. Ready when: The new tasks are feasible and their owners acknowledge the limits and open work. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 3: Review the cause before choosing the remedy Separate a faulty brief, unavailable equipment, a learning gap and an allegation of misconduct. Tie the correction to the evidence. A learning review can assign better instructions or practice; it does not replace a fair disciplinary process. Write an improvement as an action that can be checked: amend the receiving check, assign its owner and rehearse it in the next movement. Distinguish a cause from a contributing condition and avoid claiming certainty the evidence cannot support. A review is complete only when someone accepts the follow-up, not when the report sounds decisive. Practise: Write a finding, correction and check of whether it worked. Ready when: Each finding has evidence and a proportionate action with an owner. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— WORKED DECISION A crew follows an inaccurate brief. The review corrects the material and rehearses the missed check rather than blaming every operator for the same planning error. 1. Hold the affected action and establish which instruction the crew actually received. Do not blame them for failing to follow an unseen note. 2. Confirm the supported destination and redistribute the overloaded task before issuing one corrected brief. 3. Preserve both versions. Assign a briefing-control correction and rehearse the changed handover; refer any misconduct allegation separately with evidence rather than embedding it in the training finding. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR EXERCISE Lead the correction, confirm the new assignments and write an after-action finding with an owner and check for improvement. WHAT CHANGES A team member challenges the revised plan and reports overload. My decision and reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR WORKING RECORD Original instruction / observed event / failed assumption ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Corrected plan / workload change / acceptance ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Cause supported by evidence / corrective action / owner and verification ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CHECK YOUR REASONING The crew made the same mistake. Is repeating the course for everyone the first answer? My answer before consulting the explanation: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— EVIDENCE TO KEEP Observed replanning and an evidence-based improvement record. Criterion 1: You cite the observation and the relevant change or stop condition. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 2: The new tasks are feasible and their owners acknowledge the limits and open work. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 3: Each finding has evidence and a proportionate action with an owner. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— FINDINGS AND NEXT ATTEMPT Demonstrated: observed work meets the criterion. Further practice required: an observed gap needs a specific practice task. Interrupted: conditions prevented valid assessment; not a failure. Not assessed: enough evidence has not yet been collected. All three criteria need individual evidence. A team result or quiz cannot replace an unobserved practical. Practice variant for a fresh attempt: Supply a correct brief but introduce a demonstrable read-back gap. Choose feedback appropriate to that different cause. My next practice task: ____________________________________________________________ Review contact: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— COMPARE AFTER ANSWERING Check whether the brief, demonstration or equipment caused the common error. Correct the cause and reassess the affected work; do not prescribe punishment or blanket repetition without evidence. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— READING INTO PRACTICE (SUPPLEMENTARY) MCDP 1 · Warfighting · United States Marine Corps (1997) Read: Chapter 4, The Conduct of War: Decisionmaking and Philosophy of Command. Revise the plan when its assumptions fail, not merely because a new report arrives. Explain which observation changed your judgement. In the debrief, compare what the crew knew at the time with what became clear afterwards. CREW EXERCISE A transport cannot use the planned pickup point. The crew is still together and a second site may be usable. Ask for the reports needed to choose between moving the crew, sending another ship or cancelling the pickup. Issue the revised order. In the debrief, reconstruct the sequence of reports and decisions. DEBRIEF Which assumption failed, and what evidence showed it? ____________________________________________________________ What did the crew need to know immediately? ____________________________________________________________ Which preparation or rehearsal would improve the next attempt? ____________________________________________________________ APPLYING THE SOURCE Do not invent a rescue capability to complete the scenario. If the available ships cannot perform the recovery, identify that limit and change the task. This discussion exercise adds no completion requirements; use the course assessment criteria above. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SOURCE AND EDITION Case CT–2: relieving an unavailable commander /academy/archives/watch-relief-case Command Studies case issued by CDR Maren Haldorsen in 2956. The course variants develop its test: can the next leader continue without access to the original planner’s private assumptions? The lessons are current Academy teaching, not newly discovered historical records. Lex Astra opened in 2891. Historical sources keep their original issuer and date; all case callsigns, quantities, times and conditions are supplied for practice. Course text revised 8 October 2026; fictional teaching edition 2956.3. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES Instruction revised 9 October 2026. Lex Astra cases supply the teaching situations. Professional references inform communication, decision-making and instructional design; they do not confer external qualifications. LIVE capabilities remain subject to the recorded session check. FAA · crew resource management (2004 reference) https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-51E.pdf FEMA · objective-led exercises and improvement https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-preparedness/exercises/hseep ———————————————————————————————————————————————— INSTRUCTOR CHECK Try the exercise with the ship and equipment you will use. Brief station assignments, callsigns, channel and recovery point. Explain the command “Stop exercise” before starting. If a bug prevents completion, repeat the affected task when it works. Ask before recording the session; use player handles in your notes. Review rules: /academy/archives/academy-ordinance Teaching basis: /academy/framework#research