Publication and delivery
This course is published for study. Publication does not confirm an available class, appointed instructor or completed practical validation. Before booking, obtain a session brief naming the organiser, instructor and assessor, equipment access and any independent review arrangements.
Discussion and written work may be prepared independently; assessed completion still requires an appointed assessor and evidence against the published criteria. A material game update calls for a check of affected tasks, not cancellation of earlier academic achievements.
Your brief
For strategic candidates linking authority, planning, negotiation and public reporting.
The strategic capstone combines the assistance-case mandate problem with the incomplete-delivery record. Each document must describe the same commitment.
The agreement loses its transport
Practice case · SO 299 · 2956 teaching edition
- HLN and a partner propose moving eight equal case units, four per vessel.
- The partner then withdraws its four-unit transport. No replacement is confirmed.
- A draft public account still promises eight delivered. The agreement is not yet final.
Before you begin: entry and equipment
Complete these courses
Bring or arrange
The case packet and an independent reviewer; written responses are available.
The organizer must confirm equipment access before booking. No ship purchase, pledge tier or donation is required.
Technical knowledge and game skills
Practical instruction revision 1 · 9 October 2026
A strategic proposal grounded in playable capability
Audit promises against equipment
For every promised service, identify the ship, operator, access and actual mechanic that provides it. Check medical tier against injury, container geometry against cargo access and travel legs against fuel. Remove future ship features and untested systems from unconditional promises. The proposal should work with the assets that are genuinely available.
Connect agreement, operation and account
Use the same completion boundary in the partner agreement, mission brief and public statement. If the commitment is delivery to a reception desk, landing alone is insufficient. If a treatment capability is conditional on a bed resource check, retain that qualification in all three documents rather than presenting it as guaranteed in the announcement.
Defend a changed plan
When a transport or receiver is lost, trace its effect through capacity, sequence, cost and partner commitments. Offer a smaller supported operation or a postponement with a defined next check. Explain why the strongest competing option is less suitable under the changed facts, not merely why your original proposal was attractive.
Practical drill
Prepare a joint-operation proposal using observed game capacities and access tests. Defend it at a panel after one ship or destination is withdrawn, revising the agreement and public summary consistently.
Observed-skill checks
- Every material promise maps to a demonstrated or explicitly conditional capability.
- All documents use the same receiving and completion boundaries.
- The revised proposal remains feasible after the resource withdrawal.
Use these checks to document the technical evidence supporting the course outcomes in your agreed role. Record what you personally performed, what assistance you needed and what remains unobserved. A discussion or simulated action does not certify live equipment handling; Crew Support evidence does not confer Pilot qualification.
Game references and build-sensitive details
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
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
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
Spooling, calibration, obstructions, orbital markers and interdiction. Its proposed quantum-boosting section is not used as a live procedure.
- Star Citizen Wiki — 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.
Check the official LIVE release notes and record the session build, equipment and observed limitations before practical sign-off.
Learn the method
1. Connect the authority to the proposal
Cite the source supporting each commitment and compare it with confirmed resources. Refer any authority gap before asking others to rely on the plan. A persuasive recommendation still needs a person entitled to approve it.
Construct a traceable chain from authority to commitment to resource. If the proposal promises two lifts, identify who may authorise them and which confirmed vessels and receiving arrangements make them possible. An attractive strategic objective is not evidence that the necessary permission, capacity or partner agreement exists.
- Practise
- Prepare a sourced, resourced proposal.
- Ready when
- The proposal supports or refers its authority claims and fits the available resources.
2. Keep the agreement and account aligned
Use the same confirmed commitments in the operational agreement and public statement. If a term is unresolved, qualify both documents. The public copy must not promise what the negotiating teams declined to accept.
Review the documents as one decision package. The agreement defines accepted obligations; the operational brief assigns their execution; the public account describes only what can responsibly be stated. A qualification appearing in one document must not disappear from another when that omission changes what a crew or reader would reasonably expect.
- Practise
- Draft both documents from one agreed case.
- Ready when
- Both documents agree on scope, commitments and unresolved limits.
3. Explain and revise your own decision
Answer questions by tracing the decision to a source, calculation or stated assumption. When a partner withdraws a resource, revise all affected documents. A justified refusal can be stronger than defending a plan that no longer works.
At the panel, explain the strongest alternative to your recommendation before defending your choice. When a resource is withdrawn, identify every affected commitment and revise the package consistently. Intellectual rigour includes recognising when the original recommendation no longer follows from the evidence, not merely arguing for it more forcefully.
- Practise
- Defend the proposal orally or in writing, then revise it.
- Ready when
- You explain the reasoning and update each commitment affected by the new information.
A worked decision
A partner withdraws transport. The candidate reduces the plan and changes the public account instead of leaving the old delivery promise in circulation.
- Confirm what authority and capacity remain. Propose a four-unit movement or a delayed plan, with the remainder openly deferred.
- Renegotiate the agreement around the accepted choice. Preserve the withdrawn commitment and the new terms in the decision record.
- Revise the public draft to match the agreement and actual state: proposed, dispatched and received must not be used interchangeably. Defend the changes to the reviewer.
Try it yourself
Submit the linked brief, agreement and account, then answer the reviewer’s questions about the withdrawn resource.
What changes during the exercise
A partner’s transport commitment is withdrawn.
Keep this record
- Authority / confirmed resource / decision option
- Original commitment / changed agreement / open term
- Public claim / supporting source / revision and reason
Plain-text worksheet with this case, your working fields and the assessment criteria. Fill it in privately; downloading does not submit work or record completion.
Check your reasoning
When one resource disappears, which document changes first?
Compare your reasoning
Establish the operational decision and authority, then update every affected agreement and account. Speed matters, but publishing a new promise before the parties accept it creates another inconsistency.
Answer first, then compare. In a later session, explain the decision using a changed case without referring to this answer.
How completion is judged
A decision brief, agreement, corrected account and panel responses.
The assessor checks your own work against all three “Ready when” criteria above. Use the observed-skill checks in the technical chapter to establish the applicable game-handling evidence in your agreed role. A successful team result does not replace an action they did not observe.
Findings, another attempt and review
- Demonstrated
- Your observed work meets the criterion in the agreed role.
- Further practice required
- The assessor identifies the observed gap and the specific practice needed.
- Interrupted
- Equipment, staffing or personal circumstances prevented a valid assessment. This is not a failure.
- Not assessed
- There is not yet enough evidence for this outcome.
A fresh attempt
Keep capacity but withdraw the authority for one requested action. Revise scope and public wording without changing the evidence standard.
Reassess the missing outcome, plus any linked skill that needs new evidence. For prior learning, compare existing work with the same criteria and observe any missing practical action.
Ask for the reasons behind a finding. Reviews must be handled by someone independent of the original decision; defer the review if that person is not available.
Read the Academy Ordinance and review rulesFor instructors
Session setup and coaching
Prepare the session
The case packet and an independent reviewer; written responses are available.
Assign crew stations and tell each learner what they will practise. The instructor must be able to hear the calls and see the action being assessed. Brief the callsigns, channel, route and expected duration. Replace the example locations with the places you will actually use.
- Ask the learner to explain the relevant earlier procedure without notes; correct any gap before the practical.
- Teach and demonstrate the technical chapter using the actual game indications. Run its drill with feedback before connecting those skills to the three methods and worked decision. Use the observed-skill checks to identify missing handling evidence.
- Let the learner complete the normal procedure first, then introduce the change described in the exercise. Give them time to respond without coaching. Keep unrelated failures out of this attempt.
- Record the learner's action against each criterion. Give one specific next step for any gap and transfer unfinished operational work before closing.
What to watch for in SO 299
Compare the quantities and verbs across all three documents. A correct calculation in one does not excuse an unsupported promise in another.
If another attempt is needed
Keep capacity but withdraw the authority for one requested action. Revise scope and public wording without changing the evidence standard.
Running the exercise
Give the learners the brief and the source documents before the discussion. Ask them to explain what they would do, then change one condition and hear their revised decision.
Brief the command “Stop exercise” before starting. On that call, cease the drill and tell the instructor what needs attention. For weapons practice, identify the participating ships and crew; anyone else entering the area is a reason to hold fire.
Session administration: use player handles in your notes. Ask before recording voice or video, and agree when the recording will be deleted. Academy rules and review procedure.
Sources and edition
Lex Astra · School of Law & Public Affairs
Course SO 299 · edition 2956.3 · 2956 teaching edition · revised course text.
Case SO–6: an escort offered on conditions
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.
Professional references and instructional revision
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.
Editorial context and teaching basis
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.
Your session brief names the instructor, the crew assignments and the equipment provided. Contact the teaching office above to arrange a place.
Course-text revision: 8 October 2026. Educational references were reviewed for the framework on 8 October 2026; they inform the teaching approach, not external accreditation or current game-capability claims.
Teaching research and its limitsWhere this leads
Strategic Operations requirementsCourse records retain the edition and role assessed. New teaching text does not erase earlier achievements.