LEX ASTRA ACADEMY SO 299 / Strategic case assessment Lex Astra · School of Law & Public Affairs Teaching edition 2956.3 / Tabletop ———————————————————————————————————————————————— LEARNER WORKSHEET For strategic candidates linking authority, planning, negotiation and public reporting. 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 Present an assistance plan whose authority, resources, agreement and public account remain consistent when circumstances change. COURSE CONTEXT The strategic capstone combines the assistance-case mandate problem with the incomplete-delivery record. Each document must describe the same commitment. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— ENTRY Complete: SO 210, SO 225, SO 270 Equipment: The case packet and an independent reviewer; written responses are available. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CASE: The agreement loses its transport 1. HLN and a partner propose moving eight equal case units, four per vessel. 2. The partner then withdraws its four-unit transport. No replacement is confirmed. 3. A draft public account still promises eight delivered. The agreement is not yet final. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND GAME SKILLS A strategic proposal grounded in playable capability Practical instruction revision 1 / 9 October 2026 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. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ All documents use the same receiving and completion boundaries. My action / observed result / assistance / evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ Live, simulated or unobserved: ____________________________________________________________ The revised proposal remains feasible after the resource withdrawal. 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. 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. Official LIVE release check: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/patch-notes ———————————————————————————————————————————————— 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. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 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. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— METHOD 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. My action and observed result: ____________________________________________________________ Evidence reference: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— 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. 1. Confirm what authority and capacity remain. Propose a four-unit movement or a delayed plan, with the remainder openly deferred. 2. Renegotiate the agreement around the accepted choice. Preserve the withdrawn commitment and the new terms in the decision record. 3. 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. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR EXERCISE Submit the linked brief, agreement and account, then answer the reviewer’s questions about the withdrawn resource. WHAT CHANGES A partner’s transport commitment is withdrawn. My decision and reason: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— YOUR WORKING RECORD Authority / confirmed resource / decision option ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Original commitment / changed agreement / open term ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Public claim / supporting source / revision and reason ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— CHECK YOUR REASONING When one resource disappears, which document changes first? My answer before consulting the explanation: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— EVIDENCE TO KEEP A decision brief, agreement, corrected account and panel responses. Criterion 1: The proposal supports or refers its authority claims and fits the available resources. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 2: Both documents agree on scope, commitments and unresolved limits. Individual evidence / finding / assessor's reason: ____________________________________________________________ Criterion 3: You explain the reasoning and update each commitment affected by the new information. 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: Keep capacity but withdraw the authority for one requested action. Revise scope and public wording without changing the evidence standard. My next practice task: ____________________________________________________________ Review contact: ____________________________________________________________ ———————————————————————————————————————————————— COMPARE AFTER ANSWERING 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. ———————————————————————————————————————————————— 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