LEX ASTRA ACADEMY SO 210 / Operational analysis and decision briefs Lex Astra · School of Law & Public Affairs Teaching edition 2956.3 / Tabletop ———————————————————————————————————————————————— LEARNER WORKSHEET For analysts preparing a decision brief for movement leaders and mission planners. 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 Give decision-makers a clear choice between workable plans and identify what would change your recommendation. COURSE CONTEXT This strategic exercise uses the transport constraint from the Academy’s reception cases but asks for an options decision rather than a passenger board. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— ENTRY Complete: SO 120 Equipment: The case resource list, timing assumptions and worksheet. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CASE: One transport confirmed, two assumed 1. Eight case passengers require movement. One transport has four seats. 2. Option A is two staged movements with the confirmed vessel; the second trip still needs a timing check. 3. Option B is one simultaneous movement using a second vessel that has not confirmed availability. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND GAME SKILLS Operational analysis with game constraints Practical instruction revision 1 / 9 October 2026 Measure the limiting stage Break a proposed operation into travel, access, loading or treatment, return and reception. Time a representative cycle rather than estimating from maximum ship speed. A rescue fleet with many seats but one suitable medical bed is constrained by care and transfer, not just lift. A cargo fleet may be constrained by handling geometry rather than advertised SCU. Compare feasible alternatives Build options that use confirmed ships, present players and demonstrated mechanics. Compare a single staged lift with parallel lifts using the same total demand. State what each option leaves uncovered. Do not multiply a best-case cycle rate by an entire evening without allowing for replenishment, failed access and crew relief. Write a decision that can change Recommend one option and name the observation that would change it: an additional bed becoming usable, a receiver accepting more cargo, or a route reopening. Keep estimates visibly separate from measurements. If a ship is only proposed or a capability has not been demonstrated, place it in a conditional option rather than the baseline resource total. PRACTICAL DRILL Compare two relief or industrial plans using one measured game cycle. Remove a critical resource, recalculate capacity and give a concise revised recommendation. OBSERVED-SKILL CHECKS The binding constraint follows from actual task timings and capacity. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ Both options use compatible, available resources. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ The recommendation includes a specific reversal condition. 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 — 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 — Cargo https://starcitizen.tools/Cargo SCU, container geometry, grids and ownership. The page also contains obsolete automatic-loading descriptions and future design intentions; these are not instructions for the present cargo interface. Star Citizen Wiki — Quantum drive https://starcitizen.tools/Quantum_travel Spooling, calibration, obstructions, orbital markers and interdiction. Its proposed quantum-boosting section is not used as a live procedure. Official LIVE release check: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 1: Write the decision before the solution State the result needed, deadline and limits. Separate those facts from a preferred vessel, route or method. Otherwise the brief may spend its effort defending an early choice rather than solving the actual problem. Frame the decision so it can be answered now. “How should relief be organised?” is too broad; “Should the first lift proceed with one confirmed transport or wait for a second?” identifies a choice, a resource uncertainty and an immediate consequence. State whose decision it is and when delay itself changes the available options. Practise: Turn a solution-led request into a decision question. Ready when: The brief distinguishes the objective, constraints and proposed method. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 2: Compare feasible alternatives Use the same capacity, timing and authority assumptions for both options. Include waiting or reducing scope if neither full plan is supportable. Identify the assumption most likely to change the comparison. Distinguish an option’s feasibility from its attractiveness. Eliminate plans that cannot satisfy essential authority or capacity constraints before comparing benefits. Then use common criteria—time, coverage, cost and unresolved dependencies—without concealing a decisive limitation inside an average score. Include a smaller or delayed operation where it is genuinely viable. Practise: Prepare a two-option comparison. Ready when: Both options use consistent criteria and explicit resource assumptions. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 3: Make the recommendation conditional where needed Recommend an action and state the fact that would make you reverse it. When new information arrives, show exactly which assumption changed. Keep the original recommendation so the reader can follow the revision. State the recommendation, decisive reason and reversal condition together. For example, staged movement works with the confirmed vessel; simultaneous movement becomes an option only after the second vessel and its receiver accept. The brief should tell the decision-maker which new fact matters, not require a complete re-analysis whenever any message arrives. Practise: Update the brief after a resource is withdrawn. Ready when: The revised recommendation follows from the new evidence and identifies the remaining uncertainty. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— WORKED DECISION Only one transport is confirmed. The brief recommends staged movement now rather than a simultaneous lift that depends on an unconfirmed second vessel. 1. State the decision as how to move eight within a verified receiving window, not how to obtain your preferred second vessel. 2. Compare confirmed capacity, timing assumptions and receiving acceptance for both options. Mark the second trip and second vessel as different uncertainties. 3. When the second vessel is withdrawn, remove B as a currently executable option. Recommend staged movement only if its timing is checked; otherwise reduce scope or wait. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR EXERCISE Write a short recommendation with two options and a reversal condition. Update it when the second vessel is ruled out. WHAT CHANGES The second transport will not be available. My decision and reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR WORKING RECORD Decision / objective / deadline or condition ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Option / confirmed resources / assumptions / consequence ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Recommendation / reversal condition / revised decision ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CHECK YOUR REASONING Does admitting that a second vessel is unconfirmed weaken the brief? My answer before consulting the explanation: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— EVIDENCE TO KEEP A decision brief, comparable options and a revised recommendation. Criterion 1: The brief distinguishes the objective, constraints and proposed method. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 2: Both options use consistent criteria and explicit resource assumptions. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 3: The revised recommendation follows from the new evidence and identifies the remaining uncertainty. 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: Confirm the second vessel but shorten the receiving window. Recalculate which plan, if either, still works. My next practice task: ____________________________________________________________ Review contact: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— COMPARE AFTER ANSWERING It makes the choice usable. The decision-maker can approve a plan that works with one vessel and specify what changes if the second becomes available. Hidden uncertainty prevents that decision. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— 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