LEX ASTRA ACADEMY SO 120 / Charter and delegated authority Lex Astra · School of Law & Public Affairs Teaching edition 2956.3 / Seminar ———————————————————————————————————————————————— LEARNER WORKSHEET For analysts reading HLN authority across different historical periods. 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 Trace a decision to the current Charter or another valid instrument, and identify what it does not authorize. COURSE CONTEXT Law & Public Affairs distinguishes the original issuing institution from the Academy teaching it. Lex Astra opened in 2891; it did not issue the 2158 fleet instructions. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— ENTRY Complete: FD 120 Equipment: The current public Charter, Academy Ordinance and relevant historical sources. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CASE: Teaching an order older than the Academy 1. The institutional history dates HLN Group’s formation to 2158 and Lex Astra’s opening to 2891. 2. The historical fleet rule requires fleet acceptance before a booking office confirms a sailing. 3. A present-day request asks whether that historical rule alone authorizes command of a partner vessel. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND GAME SKILLS Institutional authority applied to a live contract Practical instruction revision 1 / 9 October 2026 Map three different rule sets Compare the institution’s governing text, the exercise organiser’s brief and the game contract. The first defines institutional authority, the second defines the agreed training activity, and the third identifies the playable objective and its restrictions. None can silently replace the others. A university appointment does not grant access to a restricted bunker or another player’s ship. Test the practical consequence Take a disputed instruction such as entering a site after the mission ends. Read the contract’s completion state and any departure or trespass warning, then compare the proposed action with the exercise authority. Offer a supported alternative such as leaving, relocating the drill or seeking the correct mission rather than treating the historical charter as a game-access token. Preserve history without expanding powers When using an archival account, identify whether it records a past event or grants a current delegation. Translate only the relevant current provision into the crew brief, naming who can decide and what they cannot authorise. Keep the contract screenshot or text as operational evidence, separate from the historical argument. PRACTICAL DRILL Write a short ruling on a fictional instruction to remain in a completed bunker mission. Cite the institutional provision, the game’s current warning and an operationally feasible alternative. OBSERVED-SKILL CHECKS Institutional, exercise and game authority are distinguished. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ The recommended action responds to actual mission access conditions. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Historical evidence is not presented as a present-day gameplay permission. 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 — Defend Occupants https://starcitizen.tools/Defend_Occupants A specific lawful bunker mission, shared access, allied NPCs and friendly-fire consequences. Other contracts have different conditions. Squad drills below are Academy teaching methods, not claimed game rules. Star Citizen Wiki — CrimeStat https://starcitizen.tools/CrimeStat Consequences of assault, prohibited cargo and restricted access. Historical thresholds and clearance instructions are not relied upon; jurisdiction and contract text govern the exercise. Official LIVE release check: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 1: Start with a retrievable source Name the instrument, issuing office, date or edition and relevant provision. Use the current text for a current decision. If reading a historical case, use the institution and authority that existed then rather than projecting today’s offices backward. Read institutional documents with attention to provenance and purpose. A charter establishes powers; an implementing order may delegate only part of them; an archive account may describe an event without authorising any present action. Quote the relevant provision with enough context to preserve its conditions and identify which edition governs the decision. Practise: Locate and cite the provision needed for the case. Ready when: Another reader can find the cited passage and identify its date and issuer. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 2: Read the limit with the permission Write down what is allowed, who may decide and which conditions apply. Read review and reserved-power provisions as well as the sentence that appears to grant permission. Silence does not establish a delegation. Separate interpretation from amendment. You may explain how a provision bears on the case, but cannot broaden it by writing a convenient operational summary. Where two texts appear inconsistent, examine their issuer, date, scope and amendment status before concluding that the later-looking document displaced the earlier authority. Practise: Separate supported actions from unresolved requests. Ready when: Each conclusion distinguishes explicit authority from an interpretation or unanswered question. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 3: Refer a precise question State the decision that cannot yet be made, the source already checked and the clarification needed. Send it to the office responsible for that authority. A focused referral is more useful than asking for blanket approval of the whole mission. Make the referral answerable: identify the proposed act, the person expected to approve it, the relevant provision and the exact uncertainty. Offer a narrower action already supported by the text where appropriate. This lets the responsible office resolve the disputed part without halting unrelated work or granting an undefined exception. Practise: Draft the referral for the unresolved part of the request. Ready when: The referral identifies the source, uncertainty and requested decision. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— WORKED DECISION An assistance request asks to direct a partner vessel. The learner separates providing assistance from command of the partner and asks for the missing authority. 1. Identify the 2158 issuer as HLN Group’s fleet authority, using the source rather than today’s Academy masthead. 2. Explain the rule’s subject: approval of a sailing, not a general transfer of outside command. Mark the distinction between the historical source and your interpretation. 3. Consult the current Charter for the present request and refer any unanswered delegation question. A historical lesson can inform judgment without becoming current authority by itself. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR EXERCISE Write a source commentary naming the original issuer, period, rule and limit. Add a separate referral for the present partner-vessel request. WHAT CHANGES A second instrument appears to contradict the first. My decision and reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR WORKING RECORD Source title / issuer / date / passage or summary ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Supported authority / interpretation / unresolved request ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Current instrument checked / referral office / question ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CHECK YOUR REASONING A 2956 course discusses an order from 2158. Which institution issued the original order? My answer before consulting the explanation: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— EVIDENCE TO KEEP A linked source analysis and a specific authority referral. Criterion 1: Another reader can find the cited passage and identify its date and issuer. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 2: Each conclusion distinguishes explicit authority from an interpretation or unanswered question. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 3: The referral identifies the source, uncertainty and requested decision. 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: Use the 2953 alliance relationship instead of the 2158 fleet decision. Ask the same questions about contribution and retained command. My next practice task: ____________________________________________________________ Review contact: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— COMPARE AFTER ANSWERING Identify the issuer from the 2158 source. Lex Astra did not open until 2891, so it can teach the document today but could not have issued it then. Keep the original issuer separate from the teaching editor. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— SOURCE AND EDITION Case SO–6: an escort offered on conditions /academy/archives/assistance-case Law & Public Affairs case issued by CAPT Soren Achterberg in 2956. The course variants examine authority, evidence and commitments; a historical source informs the analysis but does not supply an unstated current delegation. 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. Cedefop · observable learning outcomes https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications/4209 Carnegie Mellon · objective / assessment alignment https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/learningobjectives.html ———————————————————————————————————————————————— 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