Evidence, assumptions and judgment

The background behind our scenarios, the conditions we invent, and how we build a reference comparison.

This page describes our approach across the library. Item-level reasoning stays with the session reveal, where teams can compare it with their own decisions.

Published principles

Agency guidance, research, technical references and historical records help us check what a claim can reasonably say. We record the context and limits of the material we consult.

Fictional conditions

Protocol15 writes the people, setting, available resources and constraints. Quantities, future technology and imagined events are scenario assumptions, even when real principles inform them.

Authored judgment

Protocol15 compares the options under those conditions and writes a reference ranking. The exact positions are our reasoned judgments. A source may support a principle without supplying the order.

What a comparison tells you

A reference score describes closeness to the scenario’s model. It does not establish survival skill, professional competence, teamwork quality or learning. The useful discussion is about reasons, assumptions and what could change a choice. Research informing an exercise is separate from evidence that Protocol15 improves real-world outcomes.

From a source to an exercise

Check the claim
Use the original agency, research, technical or historical source where possible. Record whether we read guidance, relevant full-text sections, an abstract or a catalogue entry.
State the assumptions
Separate reported findings from the circumstances invented for the exercise. Make equipment capabilities, resource limits and deliberate unknowns explicit.
Compare the tradeoffs
Explain the reference choices, their dependencies and reasonable alternatives. A lower position does not make a required safety step optional.
Keep the limits visible
Revise contradictions and unsupported claims. Editorial checks do not replace subject-matter assessment, participant comprehension checks or pilots. These require separate evidence.

A general bibliography

37 selected references from our review records, listed alphabetically by author or organization. This is background material across the library, without a source-to-scenario or source-to-item guide. It is not an exhaustive literature review.

Reading depth varies. An abstract supports a narrower check than full text; an archival description establishes less than a reconstruction. The organizations and authors below do not endorse Protocol15 or certify its reference rankings.

A record we keep revising

Bibliography compiled

These notes draw on our English scenario review records. Source access is sometimes limited, and unresolved factual, specialist and workshop-validation questions remain. Links, dates and reading notes make that basis inspectable; they are not a claim that every aspect has been independently validated.

Scenarios evolve. A saved session can contain an earlier edition. Use its revealed reference explanations when discussing that session’s choices. The fictional exercises are not real-world operating instructions.

For the activity itself, read The method. To flag a source or wording issue, contact Protocol15.