MA-Bench v1.0.0

.gitattributes

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+*.7z filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.arrow filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.avro filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.bin filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.bz2 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.ckpt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.ftz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.gz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.h5 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.joblib filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.lfs.* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.lz4 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.mds filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.mlmodel filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.model filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.msgpack filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.npy filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.npz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.onnx filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.ot filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.parquet filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pb filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pickle filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pkl filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.pth filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.rar filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.safetensors filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tar.* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tar filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tflite filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tgz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.wasm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.xz filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.zip filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.zst filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*tfevents* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Audio files - uncompressed
+*.pcm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.sam filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.raw filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Audio files - compressed
+*.aac filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.flac filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.mp3 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.ogg filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.wav filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Image files - uncompressed
+*.bmp filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.gif filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.png filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.tiff filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Image files - compressed
+*.jpg filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.jpeg filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.webp filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+# Video files - compressed
+*.mp4 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+*.webm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+runs/briefs.jsonl filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+runs/verdicts.jsonl filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

MANIFEST.json

@@ -0,0 +1,545 @@
+{
+ "created": "2026-09-25",
+ "files": {
+  "README.md": {
+   "sha256": "cdc162e0d4315ca07acc7fa9fc2e2125ee55e6c8758d3c9524f28c779f82ee26",
+   "bytes": 10842
+  },
+  "data/cases.jsonl": {
+   "sha256": "3d8bc46c20869a2b6f73c02a0bd2df079e602c49b957b4b6516258e2b1a3fd1f",
+   "bytes": 2306
+  },
+  "data/documents.jsonl": {
+   "sha256": "4a452c229a32db76d06a95162e02e65982926e22ef6acef45461e9d917acf800",
+   "bytes": 1407246
+  },
+  "data/rubric_items.jsonl": {
+   "sha256": "6a88bf34a46131046ded838a9e427d6aa4f14ca6fe1370c80a954086ecba71d6",
+   "bytes": 1163012
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "41988e6211e9066836f79cd4821d19bc77d4b2f77447f320e56c86d7d48c5b02",
+   "bytes": 7497
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "9b17a514c1e65b58698804fb1d76aeaa249267b6f59df0ef448ab08d3f46b0ec",
+   "bytes": 14525
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/03_Threat_Network_Laydown.md": {
+   "sha256": "d469b9fe623eba849a180c2a67a6082808aafff15bfb4c0f537b84c7e3c4751c",
+   "bytes": 8646
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/04_Friendly_Partner_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "345c46c2529a549b7880dc299eadc160348032a6d0443854bb5afb86ee906d68",
+   "bytes": 8821
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "1115453e6a7ff5dd7194b990d8f838989d35c750f6f61eb5ca378f25b6491ff2",
+   "bytes": 7960
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "5608e9f715a4b3397fbceeb6df1511c8bd0a0fc805d232519e5194ee9a04d4a2",
+   "bytes": 8118
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/07_SecDef_CJCS_EXORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "e1d05d806f1695a46f8a32eb4c2a4ab0bb8f8b3eb2f1591070bde2f7c8984ec4",
+   "bytes": 14221
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/10_JIPOE_Brief.md": {
+   "sha256": "f7b33ee80583ad6aba12a765c703dfb2d2cd41299f63232daa309f5939d6a771",
+   "bytes": 8913
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/11_Annexes.md": {
+   "sha256": "72087ca5c5691742184ef0a3273274921701a0f87a4cb0f57e376f0424005407",
+   "bytes": 9145
+  },
+  "packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/16_OSINT_Bundle.md": {
+   "sha256": "30e61275f994bd5836e56ae410888a86f323079bf78a40d101adc1719f1852bd",
+   "bytes": 5722
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "ea1bf918b5dd77a202120d2fc439c94853bee1b9c9e17eba5df3814a7fb81126",
+   "bytes": 11855
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "e4bc6017895c9a5d99d7fc992cdde87715821af902bdf6f2cfeb1e54eda9c415",
+   "bytes": 12894
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/03_Adversary_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "ce003191bc717c93a39c93bb855d564fd4b27558a6e2a16fdb54cccc10614aad",
+   "bytes": 12155
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/04_Coalition_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "6f2dcf432f1745aa278186429c59aadcf9b84191290190e1e134b8b05b42aa8c",
+   "bytes": 9798
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "409ecf9fb66548b0d9a92af06bf4f1b4b721c016da4dd52fa275f7ae2abf025a",
+   "bytes": 11390
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "ac81200a482df4d8eb3950a3378e4a73daa46ff1e926a1eb5c8266cfa1eb9ec4",
+   "bytes": 9247
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/07_CJCS_EXORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "279aa74d632845173fcb8f9f867074c12418798749f1193f8ca6475acce6f55a",
+   "bytes": 15796
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/10_JIPOE_Brief.md": {
+   "sha256": "3b6f85d8aaee1922e84ed5eb6e90043ac12bb4173396128fa3b8f53b1ac7a77b",
+   "bytes": 11149
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/11_Annexes.md": {
+   "sha256": "7b36a80c74321e36c452d816515b09f623c41d511bf5442392aa75efb890611a",
+   "bytes": 10651
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/12_CIPG.md": {
+   "sha256": "aa04447e882f8a66a3620244cd67bb97b667ae0a5b9806b43615e1f2ee90759b",
+   "bytes": 12270
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/14_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "b2824031aa44511dba75744e919d80720b6379dc7f73e31baadb47337a4818b6",
+   "bytes": 8139
+  },
+  "packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/16_OSINT_Bundle.md": {
+   "sha256": "45b823edc8772bf481fa41dae513e9339afb751aebd7f32139b5153ea610256d",
+   "bytes": 8779
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "512b0a67f46b81cd98c4f3ace4af35f657a72101d243481cf5f5cc53ace2c7a2",
+   "bytes": 6351
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "b0ffe6917b1bf57e4e4aaf800811779e277ec26ba9d5d8e31326f27687fcf55e",
+   "bytes": 6962
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/03_Adversary_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "613010b1eb1621e16e5470e2c4f2c57a88590753a354481c97f454dfd8681ea6",
+   "bytes": 5765
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/04_Coalition_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "c65826db115439ad30bfa481c11c55b95bf50da7b8f76572e07b08cf6d159468",
+   "bytes": 4849
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "b6a6bf0ce2b42782e75ab43f7a61d950b1a33cc8b3a8bca4114bc16c9a33b009",
+   "bytes": 5032
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "ef475a81acd882d886f9402fb14133a0657125bdf3c0eb545a74072a20c0adbc",
+   "bytes": 5627
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/07_CJCS_EXORD_md_docx.md": {
+   "sha256": "866ee9495f1c8b0adcdca207667266c532b029703e308287aee5ef5f9e2dcb20",
+   "bytes": 6285
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/10_JIPOE_Brief_md_docx.md": {
+   "sha256": "dd32cfd35d0251c4a58628726f3ae346099fd3cc4a93f8663727b29dab6e5ecc",
+   "bytes": 12081
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/11_Annexes.md": {
+   "sha256": "4e6a904e47497441bbc3ed63fb3f7254f439f48be595bb2cafc57963e65cc252",
+   "bytes": 5206
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/12_CIPG.md": {
+   "sha256": "db86cee60a9b21c983ccd61ea29e5ca1ecadcb661e955e90a0154757a8e38311",
+   "bytes": 6324
+  },
+  "packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/14_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "2958646188952f811ce9470a07cce4ad9a82477c67ed8a536a7118f254495f84",
+   "bytes": 5134
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "4d7cdf86edbb7e72782cf5032dabeb10d45d6e04f483174b95a149bbbd221c43",
+   "bytes": 2902
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "f31da2ff2ccb116a68456e0f0def02492d42d72c3c07f18172fdfaeb02f43eb4",
+   "bytes": 2925
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/03_Adversary_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "d855d92715f2304d23e54bffa4400a37a08cff9f842f659469032c087d82d348",
+   "bytes": 2756
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/04_Coalition_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "c026d2c0e7d5356a372427d9fc066e9df64f05e17b3718e95f49dc21746449dd",
+   "bytes": 2882
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "e6c1ea46a5b08e268b35098f8f950b3dca50ff53855ebe936cdd9913e90c122b",
+   "bytes": 2778
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "5b40c60eac68c0af4f44e4c508a8453f9927356694ba28f736b9cb7762020a97",
+   "bytes": 2773
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/07_CJCS_EXORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "02264de84af0ffab406d99cac854fb05a67ff6d9cc3e85a576181d1d23d4775b",
+   "bytes": 5252
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/10_JIPOE_Brief.md": {
+   "sha256": "f0e044f8178191f0e1f5ff1c39a276919f7bcce0b073a1e174bf9049d6acba97",
+   "bytes": 3367
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/11_Annexes.md": {
+   "sha256": "b0e63bedebfc654e85245ed398aec720d8fca94e47f6fd9376d70abf333c53c9",
+   "bytes": 2911
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/12_CIPG.md": {
+   "sha256": "16321662e703c32877892b6734ff953c0cb522dcefd78a1e3e9d56b2c60c24eb",
+   "bytes": 3589
+  },
+  "packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/14_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "a315daab65054c4117767e7691f8d51adbb288f776554f29b0eb0a58dc9f2af3",
+   "bytes": 2820
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "258ad975bc67c6412a903a110e6ab628c815491e01569e33b9367f3436fac8ce",
+   "bytes": 5241
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/02_Regional_Intelligence_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "d95eefb2c32730fbde2517fad7bb44c3e239f5f7f0a29355aabd7569ac368585",
+   "bytes": 32349
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/03_Adversary_Order_of_Battle.md": {
+   "sha256": "cbe7a0e3e98c3476d85efbd69b71466dda75f6052246ef02bb2fb8b87105c1a2",
+   "bytes": 5349
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/04_Coalition_Order_of_Battle.md": {
+   "sha256": "1c150f599e9d790a5836bc6b39656f911ed1141af049a17ec5d0bce311c10edd",
+   "bytes": 6413
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/05_Country_Fact_Sheet_and_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "6a433be4f5df8c6069175ef972aa83ef6205b2160f51934c5ec17a22564def61",
+   "bytes": 5481
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/07_CJCS_WARNORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "bab9ad1d9f6829c4951c3369e44dc340754c07c2a64289761428e3a5ed6933ce",
+   "bytes": 9375
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/10_JIPOE_Brief.md": {
+   "sha256": "c801c2cc701d5b7f6aaeaa97aa7293b54cd96925c35fcae0908511ab8414aa79",
+   "bytes": 30922
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/11_Annexes_and_References.md": {
+   "sha256": "a8641ae0b2174aa7def389b89125c3d1e70d36543a9d9ecf8ba8425f3c562cda",
+   "bytes": 2591
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/11a_PL_96_8_TRA_ORIGINAL.md": {
+   "sha256": "314f59c31344ed1c90fc55ebc5a27d60f9381bc488218f0bc4b55b605d57e065",
+   "bytes": 23568
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/11a_Taiwan_Relations_Act_PL96_8.md": {
+   "sha256": "314f59c31344ed1c90fc55ebc5a27d60f9381bc488218f0bc4b55b605d57e065",
+   "bytes": 23568
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/12_CIPG.md": {
+   "sha256": "58e46e530ad03d8f361257d7136c6b6bbd833ec9a07525e0dd99f4f7fc2dd771",
+   "bytes": 30479
+  },
+  "packets/C4_SEA_TIGER/14_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "4a33c05ea91df8ba966e7a788f5b6c0247dab59df172b5e628da27b358411ef0",
+   "bytes": 5670
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "d7a129d35d882ba114390f1a585378ad875025785d5ce52c68f86b6c7a5feb83",
+   "bytes": 5020
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/02_Regional_Intelligence_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "df2d7a73e086a4ea79d18093097d652b4563453d67b31659fc4d6bcb8cf62eba",
+   "bytes": 4994
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/03_Adversary_Order_of_Battle.md": {
+   "sha256": "7a6ebb0274c68815ce67fc128b9965b0893c1449deee4651a98d188581ea55a5",
+   "bytes": 3262
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/04_Coalition_Order_of_Battle.md": {
+   "sha256": "a3e9800d87c0645fee2e1c812f4d0be2122051596aaa481562c7d28ed1e1ba4d",
+   "bytes": 4314
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "133a7e3d88208c9620ff6454d994c6af192c2d077947b69f17afc00963ed3214",
+   "bytes": 4050
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "506860c7f50ceca528e8f1c5af82e341350802d72163aec8f0ddedbcba94f621",
+   "bytes": 3656
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/07_Department_of_War_EXORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "aa588131e37afc4d4e96853651209a5be50d2ab7cf2953eb5191783cdec05e89",
+   "bytes": 7136
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/07b_CJCS_WARNORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "2a0b21ca96a257e2faee34f51d801cca678d6a88e53e95849e93d7f995038fc8",
+   "bytes": 10686
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/10_JIPOE_Brief.md": {
+   "sha256": "1bdd0be2cf4f01abd6014288ae2fd2a5c2b0f09725f95f7c3621a84b8f26ff77",
+   "bytes": 3847
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/11_Annexes_and_References.md": {
+   "sha256": "e9dbef2ea361615ac8e6f9a62bcf30c6bf69ea4257083595bc124da862ca50a4",
+   "bytes": 3885
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/12_CIPG.md": {
+   "sha256": "2ba9181fd3e86b4f24078fb813f42ee33cca61327415521accd07e884ac47fa7",
+   "bytes": 23637
+  },
+  "packets/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN/14_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "1fc5849f96822acdfe392e25aedcee09762b821c65a7dcfc530bfc7543c07317",
+   "bytes": 4879
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "cce5b7af7c2f50f9aa3888437ad9d4e7df11d19d7edb31fca62643226f5fed48",
+   "bytes": 18637
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "7e50b7163d674730b189af5c7cf987d7304befd591fde220c6b3dbaf3982c234",
+   "bytes": 28122
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/03_Adversary_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "b2cdfb46d2262e5587af8d97ff6ee77f1e538ec59be9c1af8f2317352c012963",
+   "bytes": 18963
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/04_Coalition_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "07583d35f5c514408ab7360063cf3e7e5723b2760265c5ebf5c6eabe4dc6f035",
+   "bytes": 15974
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "b637991a1d1a5f6a85a4770398e2da132b7b274a8af6e8f0f52fa07155f5a3de",
+   "bytes": 15761
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "e5bb76ad67f0dd5d7c67b4380bed48271eced605ba3fc3f1b2776ab7e05434af",
+   "bytes": 14457
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/09_JIPOE_Brief.md": {
+   "sha256": "629083ac5630c6d2c9e6bdd25b81aa65d094ee4afe99243a265f9e3fb552d175",
+   "bytes": 22234
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/11_CIPG.md": {
+   "sha256": "cb777c1fd04e87500d4cdc5e93abcd9b5103e617f68654d850465a6068c95286",
+   "bytes": 33019
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/13_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "5d8ecde6cd0f046c5d3c335791ef0f51e8998ad160fbf0e24617fb4d013dfddb",
+   "bytes": 32893
+  },
+  "packets/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER/15_CJCS_EXORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "93e46bdb7631513f0ddc3ef430e3c3d90f6c41458fbda6dd62660442fe088427",
+   "bytes": 29637
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "b435a9be82f75969d5136331492cdc1ba82b8130b76214730fa330d71897778c",
+   "bytes": 14388
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "df3757143fbee8be42523e8d71b4bb1ed2941c2e303f457205b515e533da1875",
+   "bytes": 22195
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/02map_Situational_Map.md": {
+   "sha256": "b048d12fbc18a02f31d932bb1202ec4ff6168f08580fdbd1fa501ddb4621e866",
+   "bytes": 20883
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/03_Adversary_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "be43e04ce19ed59e8a370791965de1befd47a6f38ea79e44741dda5c2ed08914",
+   "bytes": 26440
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/04_Forces_Available_for_Planning.md": {
+   "sha256": "5edff844b027447c8214620a4007ea3675490e7b950354cba907d7bfc1c36b4c",
+   "bytes": 2190
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "0978fed59bbefa1a08fefe3c57bcf9f4432b5b6ae87b5260387076891fc500d9",
+   "bytes": 9815
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "7946ab9d3b6de20175329471b110886971ed2d0b796c92e8141a27088258d4ff",
+   "bytes": 25750
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/07_CJCS_WARNORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "567cd1845bb74c63f45537655e90a45e9d3236f5753a9abefd5e469b4978da0a",
+   "bytes": 19746
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/10_JIPOE.md": {
+   "sha256": "942d7fda7e0149856e108e9de95d2d34f95179aee6939fefb06b2d71fb0f9312",
+   "bytes": 25772
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/11_Annexes.md": {
+   "sha256": "0f55bc4248dcd18d0ad616995540ea92c0df5e9b3a2e48234e0e701175c92cae",
+   "bytes": 21359
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/12_CIPG.md": {
+   "sha256": "0d617601835df50264f0b7bf25f2e9d7e561e70ff4a6fae329ad7a581f7cbad9",
+   "bytes": 19313
+  },
+  "packets/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD/14_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "6e9471f55f2cd11662074e5d99059fea6df1014dfdbde5c9a10a26f4250920e3",
+   "bytes": 34569
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "e44771165831bb90da588c0522877400afae6fcc840386970a36feaad5838588",
+   "bytes": 11965
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "68c59293046e1dfa3356e5d11ba0034650dfd2a9ab4328a57b560e400a993a95",
+   "bytes": 19096
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/03_Adversary_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "6616d2b46888a060c5cfd2959781b0c9daceaa13ac611bbe81dc3f58eb988889",
+   "bytes": 10054
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/04_Coalition_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "bc242b4967e5a84b76192dd537e5e7cf457124d7bd57eb3b9ff5eb5b807851f1",
+   "bytes": 15594
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "98d3005bf37e0ddb41403239ffa288302d55bda0afba8788b85db794cedd9525",
+   "bytes": 10597
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "4ead075677a095bdc05aaaf53ee55ffc0e6f09b5e4958083e07f6f85aeb859b7",
+   "bytes": 9307
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/07_CJCS_EXORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "c50e08b074cd92df578f11cf0ff8c083ebc9fe1ece0996863c4061967ecc89e7",
+   "bytes": 15801
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/10_JIPOE_Brief.md": {
+   "sha256": "d33ddc4c086350561d23b4eeaa7367a8c4494feab750cc63c252f7da6a69b27a",
+   "bytes": 15460
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/11_Annexes.md": {
+   "sha256": "f6f62fe7546fcbccbb91de1ba67d75bc2509681898d73f7f6d1b2148b8b3bb62",
+   "bytes": 23075
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/12_CIPG_v2.md": {
+   "sha256": "d75f924e893e5d6f8e6cf514d60bd867de41a534dbe712892f2ed875933fcad8",
+   "bytes": 12467
+  },
+  "packets/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER/14_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "8baf7c812bdeffaa686c82a8e890c5bc874ed179e9c6dca0678d63ec157e21e0",
+   "bytes": 14048
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/01_Strategic_Context.md": {
+   "sha256": "d35b81efc342c2913aabd06e1d7bca162ac0e80565ecddfdd058995ceb7ebc03",
+   "bytes": 16906
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md": {
+   "sha256": "509929c9b661c4f24c12f9bf59977b122ce9ec603390de41bd2b510900c4a20b",
+   "bytes": 19139
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/03_Adversary_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "908886d4893e65ccf416d670210899a6284ee9f50b083e431dcfb400643a7ac3",
+   "bytes": 11511
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/04_Coalition_OOB.md": {
+   "sha256": "da361991341041b29ad5593124bfb81ec46bd190fc761a332973e2c27f78ffca",
+   "bytes": 10404
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md": {
+   "sha256": "896c29f76723d13ca497f691c856789cbade774d873b15c3cd98c27567ce53ca",
+   "bytes": 14731
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/06_Critical_Geography.md": {
+   "sha256": "72dbdfc6e00bdc0d7e85f5fd876ae43199c4bf473c44aae9181db0d863a8d14f",
+   "bytes": 12158
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/07_CJCS_EXORD.md": {
+   "sha256": "2a9e1c260cf0087125fd1ab40b717b0c9b97643013f8bec66e6fe56620ab000f",
+   "bytes": 9257
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/10_JIPOE_Brief.md": {
+   "sha256": "aef39c23608c5df1481ce7ec31317e9b8533dc63af95b07c896ae9083e0f6107",
+   "bytes": 15951
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/11_Annexes.md": {
+   "sha256": "db9e83d310d6c41157d268feae829dc71e4377143605e585800a5581d25403be",
+   "bytes": 17290
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/12_CIPG.md": {
+   "sha256": "85c5585b42ab4af5adc0e7ebda4c2845c90041fbcb05a747b751628a8540b53a",
+   "bytes": 11048
+  },
+  "packets/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD/14_Running_Estimates.md": {
+   "sha256": "ba850b5904d40813fc00aacf5892625d693bb4970822101355ff337cccd34b60",
+   "bytes": 13430
+  },
+  "rubrics/C10_ONYX_RAIN.csv": {
+   "sha256": "7913f7cb44aa0e7d3c905b5501d4321857c61c7d17ac1fde7951cc61adc03a9d",
+   "bytes": 76269
+  },
+  "rubrics/C1_SILENT_FATHOM.csv": {
+   "sha256": "69c47fd52448f6fa282e74c6ffab328a333072ada53fddbb81387119e4efbb1c",
+   "bytes": 61535
+  },
+  "rubrics/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL.csv": {
+   "sha256": "8152366145f9e82b8491ca1c173c944a1b980732c934a080c26e6b93befbf924",
+   "bytes": 65385
+  },
+  "rubrics/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST.csv": {
+   "sha256": "502ac65c4444fdd672c7006f488d7caf3291da3333992d197e6cea7a8d8bf269",
+   "bytes": 58346
+  },
+  "rubrics/C4_SEA_TIGER.csv": {
+   "sha256": "82cd29a8452c6a71dc0ec57b2bec5e268831c1644110fc1680404dc8634ea900",
+   "bytes": 74842
+  },
+  "rubrics/C5_GULF_GUARDIAN.csv": {
+   "sha256": "f16a6f8c058c0dd90409a7e48fdb8bf3847f2e6437f29c1cf289b603232cf22b",
+   "bytes": 101233
+  },
+  "rubrics/C6_PACIFIC_HARRIER.csv": {
+   "sha256": "bfaed78e5e232b81fb8afe6468ec15f3669cfd26527294ae86f13489a3eb81ca",
+   "bytes": 84538
+  },
+  "rubrics/C7_SOUTHERN_SHIELD.csv": {
+   "sha256": "41b8aa16dff298162a29666502d42d9977120ee599657b71208ed82175dc7a89",
+   "bytes": 167505
+  },
+  "rubrics/C8_STEADFAST_MARINER.csv": {
+   "sha256": "a6f0b762b80db0ab90ab45cc8f4613af9cfe7b606553ce558c803d50336774e3",
+   "bytes": 96801
+  },
+  "rubrics/C9_RESOLUTE_HERALD.csv": {
+   "sha256": "9306f4386b8b9aa812258f2f4a9b573071aca51f877bdbe0ceecdbbc062d0565",
+   "bytes": 75310
+  },
+  "runs/briefs.jsonl": {
+   "sha256": "a9e28e99849153e3edf854fbf9abe5ce6650530bb5249fa1d8db332eccbd67c8",
+   "bytes": 47916491
+  },
+  "runs/expert_study.jsonl": {
+   "sha256": "708fdffc9dcbdb4567ec8515fc7304b650df42c4dd2253c3093e47e068ba5aec",
+   "bytes": 163050
+  },
+  "runs/expert_study_briefs.jsonl": {
+   "sha256": "26e56a4bf7c0ae15753969195e1dd03e634e24680fb2d649796a18344bd4eadb",
+   "bytes": 198081
+  },
+  "runs/verdicts.jsonl": {
+   "sha256": "660ebfcd34b433f3217948bf62422da699d25dee6e89d5346306c52ce6157e87",
+   "bytes": 53305225
+  },
+  "scoring/judge_input.py": {
+   "sha256": "71e6ef9beaadcbafdc1c122427019770113ef13e7b3efc0665dd26e2209bec66",
+   "bytes": 2663
+  },
+  "scoring/judge_prompt.md": {
+   "sha256": "ecbefe81f6df411c04952a92d70b449361cd301cc8d55e9af4b31ae19dbb064f",
+   "bytes": 3310
+  },
+  "scoring/score.py": {
+   "sha256": "dd7292327bb4d44905a40872d2205f843d279e3acb606843134e2c1b09cd1d19",
+   "bytes": 2085
+  },
+  "scoring/severity_weights.json": {
+   "sha256": "369c0334feb5a13772d086c8905b0826135e4ccf3c2973ce1be2d2c23cc96970",
+   "bytes": 352
+  },
+  "scoring/task_prompt.md": {
+   "sha256": "72aa1a701b07140ffc4efc69bc8c0ef158922ae96b6f24dd9c36a58ea22ab770",
+   "bytes": 2845
+  }
+ }
+}

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+---
+license: cc-by-4.0
+task_categories: [text-generation]
+language: [en]
+tags: [military-planning, mission-analysis, joint-planning-process, rubric-evaluation, long-context]
+pretty_name: MA-Bench
+size_categories: [1K<n<10K]
+configs:
+  - config_name: cases
+    data_files: data/cases.jsonl
+  - config_name: documents
+    data_files: data/documents.jsonl
+  - config_name: rubric_items
+    data_files: data/rubric_items.jsonl
+  - config_name: briefs
+    data_files: runs/briefs.jsonl
+  - config_name: verdicts
+    data_files: runs/verdicts.jsonl
+  - config_name: expert_study
+    data_files: runs/expert_study.jsonl
+  - config_name: expert_study_briefs
+    data_files: runs/expert_study_briefs.jsonl
+---
+
+# MA-Bench: Measuring Operational Planning in Language Models
+
+MA-Bench evaluates one step of the Joint Planning Process (JP 5-0): mission analysis. Each of the 10 scenarios pairs a
+full synthetic staff packet (10 to 12 documents,
+35,649 to 242,658 characters) with an expert-authored rubric of
+74 to 170 atomic, binary items (1,257 items in total).
+All scenarios are original and unpublished; no packet or rubric text exists elsewhere. This is version 1.0.0, with rubrics frozen on 2026-09-14.
+
+## Files
+
+| file | rows | one row per |
+|---|---:|---|
+| `data/cases.jsonl` | 10 | scenario: `case_id`, `operation`, `scenario`, the three judge header fields (`planning_level`, `document_type`, `difficulty`), counts |
+| `data/documents.jsonl` | 112 | model-facing document: `case_id`, `doc_number`, `doc_order`, `title`, `source_file`, `text` |
+| `data/rubric_items.jsonl` | 1,257 | rubric item: `item_id`, `item_uid`, `step`, `step_name`, `tier`, `severity`, `polarity`, `weight`, `question`, `pass_condition`, `fail_condition`, `source_fact`, `artifact_anchor`, `source_documents` |
+| `runs/briefs.jsonl` | 1,560 | generated brief: `brief_id`, `condition`, `case_id`, `scenario`, `model`, `model_slug`, `seed`, `text` (as graded) |
+| `runs/verdicts.jsonl` | 2,796 | judge verdict on a brief: `brief_id`, `judge`, `case_id`, `failed_items`, `failures` (each with `evidence` and `rationale`), `unknown_ids`, `overall_rationale`, `judge_model`, `served_model` |
+| `runs/expert_study.jsonl` | 190 | expert item verdict (see Expert study) |
+| `runs/expert_study_briefs.jsonl` | 10 | brief the experts graded: `brief`, `scenario`, `model`, `text` |
+
+- `packets/<case>_<operation>/<document>.md`: each scenario's documents, one file per document, exactly as models
+  receive them (markdown converted from the authored Word or markdown files; images omitted).
+- `rubrics/<case>_<operation>.csv`: each scenario's rubric, one row per item: step, tier, severity and weight, the
+  question with its pass and fail conditions, and the source fact and documents it rests on. UTF-8; opens in Excel.
+- `scoring/`: the task prompt, the frozen judge prompt and its input builder (`judge_input.py`), the severity weights,
+  and the reference scorer (`score.py`).
+- `MANIFEST.json`: the sha256 of every file.
+
+## Scenarios
+
+| case | code | operation | documents | packet characters | rubric items |
+|---|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| C1 | `SF-FULL` | Silent Fathom | 12 | 134,337 | 87 |
+| C2 | `JA-FULL` | Jagged Anvil | 11 | 70,196 | 147 |
+| C3 | `CT-FULL` | Coral Tempest | 11 | 35,649 | 130 |
+| C4 | `ST-FULL` | Sea Tiger | 12 | 181,678 | 170 |
+| C5 | `GG-FULL` | Gulf Guardian | 12 | 80,341 | 165 |
+| C6 | `PH-FULL` | Pacific Harrier | 10 | 229,187 | 125 |
+| C7 | `SS-FULL` | Southern Shield | 12 | 242,658 | 163 |
+| C8 | `SM-FULL` | Steadfast Mariner | 11 | 156,729 | 111 |
+| C9 | `RH-FULL` | Resolute Herald | 11 | 151,265 | 85 |
+| C10 | `OR-FULL` | Onyx Rain | 10 | 93,897 | 74 |
+
+The code is how brief ids name each scenario.
+
+## Model input
+
+A model receives the task prompt (`scoring/task_prompt.md`, with the operation name filled in and the length-cap
+paragraph appended), a blank line, `# SOURCE DOCUMENTS`, and then the packet: the scenario's documents in
+`doc_order`, assembled exactly as
+
+```python
+packet = f"# {operation} — Mission Analysis Source Packet\n" + "".join(
+    f"\n\n## Document {doc_number} — {title} (source file: {source_file})\n\n{text}\n" for each document)
+```
+
+## Rubric
+
+Each item is an atomic, binary question about the brief, with its pass and fail conditions and the source fact and
+documents it rests on. Every item has a mission analysis step (S1 to S12, named in `step_name`), a tier and a severity.
+
+- Tier: 1 = stated in one document (400 items), 2 = synthesis across facts (406), 3 = planning judgment (451).
+- Severity: CI, critically important (484); I, important (536); SI, slightly important (80);
+  D, detrimental (82); CD, critically detrimental (75). D and CD items name a wrong move, and their
+  pass condition is the presence of that move.
+
+## Judging and scoring
+
+The system under test receives the task prompt (`scoring/task_prompt.md`, operation name filled in, cap paragraph appended) followed by the packet (see `documents.jsonl`) and returns one brief, truncated to 3,000 words before grading. The cap is part of the protocol: it equalizes the length budget across models. A reasoning-model judge grades the brief
+against every rubric item in one call, returning only failed items with evidence; the judge never sees the packet. Items are binary and
+atomic; absence is failure. Negative items (severity D, CD) describe a mistake and count against the brief when the mistake is present.
+
+Severity weights: CI +9, I +5, SI +2, D -5, CD -9. Weighted score = (positive weight earned + negative weight incurred) / total positive weight, not clamped.
+
+## Generated briefs
+
+`runs/briefs.jsonl` holds 1,560 briefs, each exactly as graded (in capped conditions, text beyond the 3,000th word is
+already removed). `brief_id` is `<condition>/<scenario code>__<model_slug>__s<seed>`.
+
+| condition | briefs | settings | models |
+|---|---:|---|---|
+| `benchmark_capped` | 540 | 3,000-word cap, medium reasoning effort where the provider exposes it | Claude Fable 5.1, Claude Opus 5, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, GLM-5.3, GPT-5.6 Luna, GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemma 4 31B, Grok 4.6, Kimi K3, MiniMax M3, Mistral Medium 3.5, Muse Spark 1.3, Nemotron 3 Ultra, Qwen3.8-Max |
+| `ladder_capped` | 120 | the same settings; the capability ladder | Claude Sonnet 5, DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.8 Flash |
+| `effort_low` | 150 | 3,000-word cap, low reasoning effort | Claude Sonnet 5, GPT-5.4, GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 3.8 Flash |
+| `effort_high` | 150 | 3,000-word cap, high reasoning effort | Claude Sonnet 5, GPT-5.4, GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 3.8 Flash |
+| `uncapped` | 600 | no length cap, medium reasoning effort | Claude Fable 5.1, Claude Opus 5, Claude Sonnet 5, DeepSeek-V4-Flash, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, GLM-5.3, GPT-5.4, GPT-5.6 Luna, GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemini 3.8 Flash, Gemma 4 31B, Grok 4.6, Kimi K3, MiniMax M3, Mistral Medium 3.5, Muse Spark 1.3, Nemotron 3 Ultra, Qwen3.8-Max |
+
+### Models
+
+| slug | model |
+|---|---|
+| `anthropic_claude_fable_5_1` | Claude Fable 5.1 |
+| `anthropic_claude_opus_5` | Claude Opus 5 |
+| `anthropic_claude_sonnet_5` | Claude Sonnet 5 |
+| `azure_ai_deepseek_v4_flash` | DeepSeek-V4-Flash |
+| `azure_ai_deepseek_v4_pro` | DeepSeek-V4-Pro |
+| `gemini_gemini_3_1_pro_preview` | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
+| `gemini_gemini_3_8_flash` | Gemini 3.8 Flash |
+| `google_gemma_4_31b_it` | Gemma 4 31B |
+| `fireworks_ai_glm_5p3` | GLM-5.3 |
+| `openai_gpt_5_4` | GPT-5.4 |
+| `openai_gpt_5_6_luna` | GPT-5.6 Luna |
+| `openai_gpt_5_6_sol` | GPT-5.6 Sol |
+| `openai_gpt_6_astra` | GPT-6 Astra |
+| `xai_grok_4_6` | Grok 4.6 |
+| `fireworks_ai_kimi_k3` | Kimi K3 |
+| `fireworks_ai_minimax_m3` | MiniMax M3 |
+| `mistral_mistral_medium_3_5` | Mistral Medium 3.5 |
+| `meta_ai_muse_spark_1_3` | Muse Spark 1.3 |
+| `fireworks_ai_nemotron_3_ultra_nvfp4` | Nemotron 3 Ultra |
+| `fireworks_ai_qwen3p8_max` | Qwen3.8-Max |
+
+## Verdicts
+
+`runs/verdicts.jsonl` holds each judge's verdict on a brief. All judges used the same frozen judge prompt (`scoring/judge_prompt.md`):
+
+- `gpt-5.6`, at high reasoning effort: every brief (1,560).
+- `gemini-3.1-pro`: every brief outside `uncapped`, and the `uncapped` briefs of GPT-6 Astra and GPT-5.4
+  (1,020).
+- `claude-opus-5`: 216 `benchmark_capped` briefs (scenarios C1, C2, C3, C5, C6 and C8, ten models,
+  every seed).
+
+A verdict lists only the items the brief fails (`failures`, each with quoted evidence and a rationale); every rubric
+item not listed passes. A positive item (severity CI, I, SI) earns its weight when it passes. For a negative item (D,
+CD) the pass condition is the presence of the wrong move it names, so a listed negative item is a mistake the brief
+avoided and an unlisted one is a mistake it made, charged its (negative) weight. `scoring/score.py` turns a verdict
+into a brief's weighted score. A model's score is the mean over scenarios of its mean brief score. `python scoring/score.py data/rubric_items.jsonl <verdicts>` scores a JSONL of verdicts for one judge. In
+some verdicts, `condition`, `brief_id` and `model_slug` were renamed to match this layout; the judge's output is
+unchanged.
+
+## Expert study
+
+Four JPME-credentialed planners, de-identified as `expert_1` to `expert_4`, independently graded the same 190 item
+verdicts: nineteen rubric items in each of ten briefs, sampled across every tier and severity. They saw each brief
+and rubric item as the judge does, without the packet and without the model's name. Each row gives the brief (`B01`
+to `B10`), its scenario code and model, the rubric item as the experts saw it (id, step, tier, severity, question,
+pass and fail conditions), each expert's verdict, the expert majority (`Pass`, `Fail`, or `tie` for a two-two split),
+and the production judge's verdict on the same item (gpt-5.6 at high reasoning effort, with the judge prompt that was
+then frozen) with its note.
+
+The briefs were sampled before the packets were frozen on 2026-09-08, so 53 of the 190 items carry rubric text that
+later changed; the text given is what the experts graded, and the judge graded the same text. `runs/expert_study.jsonl` has one row per item verdict and `runs/expert_study_briefs.jsonl` the ten briefs.
+
+## Provenance
+
+Rubrics frozen 2026-09-14 from the ops team's expert-reviewed final sheet (1,156 delivered, 100 gap-fill items and 1 item restored after the expert grading study; 3 earlier items withdrawn). Relative to the 2026-09-08 freeze, 5 items had their question or pass/fail text revised, 7 gained source-document references, and 1 item was restored; the document sets are unchanged. Rubrics were authored against the packet plus downstream products of a completed mission analysis (component orders, CCIRs, event
+templates, and for some scenarios an OSINT bundle) that the model never receives; those documents are not part of this release.

data/cases.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+{"case_id": "C1", "operation": "SILENT FATHOM", "scenario": "silent_fathom", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 12, "packet_chars": 134337, "n_rubric_items": 87}
+{"case_id": "C2", "operation": "JAGGED ANVIL", "scenario": "jagged_anvil", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 11, "packet_chars": 70196, "n_rubric_items": 147}
+{"case_id": "C3", "operation": "CORAL TEMPEST", "scenario": "coral_tempest", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 11, "packet_chars": 35649, "n_rubric_items": 130}
+{"case_id": "C4", "operation": "SEA TIGER", "scenario": "sea_tiger", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 12, "packet_chars": 181678, "n_rubric_items": 170}
+{"case_id": "C5", "operation": "GULF GUARDIAN", "scenario": "gulf_guardian", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 12, "packet_chars": 80341, "n_rubric_items": 165}
+{"case_id": "C6", "operation": "PACIFIC HARRIER", "scenario": "pacific_harrier", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 10, "packet_chars": 229187, "n_rubric_items": 125}
+{"case_id": "C7", "operation": "SOUTHERN SHIELD", "scenario": "southern_shield", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 12, "packet_chars": 242658, "n_rubric_items": 163}
+{"case_id": "C8", "operation": "STEADFAST MARINER", "scenario": "steadfast_mariner", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 11, "packet_chars": 156729, "n_rubric_items": 111}
+{"case_id": "C9", "operation": "RESOLUTE HERALD", "scenario": "resolute_herald", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 11, "packet_chars": 151265, "n_rubric_items": 85}
+{"case_id": "C10", "operation": "ONYX RAIN", "scenario": "onyx_rain", "planning_level": "L3", "document_type": "mission_analysis_full", "difficulty": "full", "n_documents": 10, "packet_chars": 93897, "n_rubric_items": 74}

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/01_Strategic_Context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Strategic Context — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** Synthetic strategic-guidance compilation (National Security Strategy / National Defense Strategy / National Military Strategy / Indo-Pacific Strategy excerpts), assembled for planning reference **Prepared by:** USINDOPACOM J5 (Plans and Policy) for the Joint Task Force ONYX RAIN planning effort **Effective date:** 16 October 2026 **Reference frameworks:** Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic (DIME) instruments of national power; Joint Publication (JP) 1, JP 3-0, JP 5-0 **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## 1. Purpose
+
+This document compiles the strategic guidance that frames United States military support to the Government of Japan following Super Typhoon KAGURA. It establishes why a disaster-relief mission in the southern Ryukyu Islands is a national priority, what national and theater objectives it serves, and the boundaries within which the joint force operates. It is a planning input; it does not direct execution. Execution direction is in the Execute Order chain (documents 07 through 09b).
+
+## 2. National Security Strategy — Regional Excerpts (Synthetic)
+
+**Overarching interest.** The United States maintains a vital national interest in a free, open, secure, and prosperous Indo-Pacific. The strength of the United States alliance network is the central asymmetric advantage in the region. Among those alliances, the United States–Japan alliance is described as the cornerstone of peace and security in the Indo-Pacific.
+
+**Allied resilience as a strategic objective.** The Strategy directs that the United States help allies and partners build resilience to shocks — including natural disasters, which are increasing in frequency and severity in the Western Pacific — and that the United States be prepared to respond rapidly, at allied request, when a treaty ally suffers a catastrophe that exceeds its national response capacity. Demonstrated alliance reliability in a crisis is treated as a strategic deterrent in its own right: an alliance that performs under stress is more credible than one that performs only in rhetoric.
+
+**Integration of the instruments of national power (DIME).**
+
+- *Diplomatic.* The Department of State, through Embassy Tokyo, is the lead for the bilateral relationship. Any United States assistance flows from a Government of Japan request and is coordinated government-to-government. The United States affirms Japanese sovereignty over its own territory and its own response; the United States role is supporting.
+- *Information.* The United States communicates that its assistance is requested, transparent, and in support of Japanese-led relief, and works to ensure that accurate information about relief reaches affected populations. The Strategy notes that adversaries and malign actors increasingly exploit the information environment during disasters to erode public trust.
+- *Military.* The Department of Defense provides unique capabilities — heavy and medium airlift, sea-based logistics, engineering, and maritime-domain-awareness support — that complement, and do not substitute for, the affected nation’s own efforts and civilian relief mechanisms.
+- *Economic.* Rapid restoration of essential services and supply chains in an allied economy serves United States and regional economic interests. The United States works through existing agreements so that assistance does not create new dependencies or liabilities.
+
+## 3. National Defense Strategy — DoD-Specific Excerpts
+
+**Campaigning and the value of allies.** The National Defense Strategy directs the Department to campaign daily to strengthen alliances and to be the partner of choice. Foreign Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief, conducted at allied request, is identified as a high-return campaigning activity that reinforces interoperability and access while meeting a genuine humanitarian need.
+
+**Force-allocation discipline.** The Strategy emphasizes that the joint force must meet competing global demands with finite forward forces. Commanders are directed to weigh the opportunity cost of committing forward-postured forces to any single contingency against standing deterrence and presence requirements, and to surface those trade-offs to higher headquarters rather than absorb them silently.
+
+**Civil-military and interagency integration.** The Department supports, and does not lead, United States Government foreign disaster response. The United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA), is the lead federal agency for United States civilian assistance abroad. Military capabilities are committed to fill validated gaps that civilian and host-nation capacity cannot meet, and are transitioned back as soon as those gaps close.
+
+## 4. National Military Strategy — Joint Force Direction
+
+The National Military Strategy directs the joint force to be able to transition rapidly between competition activities and crisis response without ceding deterrence posture, and to integrate with allied command structures through established bilateral coordination mechanisms rather than improvising command relationships in a crisis. It directs commanders to protect the integrity of relief operations against criminal and malign exploitation while respecting that law enforcement in a sovereign ally’s territory is the ally’s responsibility.
+
+## 5. Indo-Pacific Strategy — Regional Excerpts
+
+The Indo-Pacific Strategy reaffirms the United States–Japan alliance as foundational and highlights the southern Ryukyu Islands as part of the strategically significant first-island-chain geography. It directs that United States activity in and around Japanese territory be conducted with full respect for Japanese sovereignty and host-nation lead, and that the United States deepen disaster-response interoperability with the Japan Self-Defense Forces, the Japan Coast Guard, and Japanese civil authorities. It explicitly cautions that United States activity in this geography be conducted so as to avoid generating unintended escalation signals, and confirms that humanitarian response is to be framed and conducted as humanitarian response.
+
+## 6. Strategic Communication Themes
+
+1.  United States assistance is provided at the request of the Government of Japan and in support of Japanese-led relief; Japan leads, the United States supports.
+2.  The United States–Japan alliance delivers for the Japanese people in their hour of need; alliance reliability is real and demonstrated.
+3.  Relief is transparent, accountable, and reaches affected populations regardless of island, district, or community; accurate information is itself a relief commodity.
+4.  The United States respects Japanese sovereignty, including Japanese responsibility for law enforcement and public safety, and operates within it.
+
+## 7. Cross-Reference to Planning Direction
+
+This strategic context is implemented through the Secretary of Defense / Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Execute Order (document 07), the USINDOPACOM Linked Execute Order (document 08), and the component Linked Execute Orders (documents 09a and 09b). The authorities and legal basis are detailed in document 11, Annex A (Operational Law). The commander’s framing of the problem is in document 12 (Commander’s Initial Planning Guidance).

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+# Regional Intelligence Summary and Background Paper — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** USINDOPACOM J2 (Intelligence Directorate) Regional Intelligence Summary and Background Paper **From:** USINDOPACOM J2 **To:** Commander, USINDOPACOM; Joint Task Force ONYX RAIN planning cell; component J2 cells; United States Forces Japan J2 **DTG of issue:** 160600Z OCT 26 **Companion graphic:** `02_Situational_Map.svg` / `02_Situational_Map.png` **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Subject:** Background paper on the Super Typhoon KAGURA disaster in the Sakishima Islands and the emerging criminal exploitation of the relief environment
+
+**Enclosures:** 1. Threat Network Laydown — see `03_Threat_Network_Laydown.md` 2. Friendly and Partner Order of Battle — see `04_Friendly_Partner_OOB.md` 3. Country Fact Sheet — see `05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md` 4. Critical Geography and the situational map — see `06_Critical_Geography.md`
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## 1. Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)
+
+Super Typhoon KAGURA (Japan Meteorological Agency designation T26-21; Joint Typhoon Warning Center 24W) struck the southern Ryukyu (Sakishima) Islands of Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, on 13–14 October 2026 at Category-5-equivalent intensity, then weakened northeastward along the Kuroshio Current after brushing eastern Taiwan on 14–15 October. Catastrophic wind, flood, and storm-surge damage to Miyakojima and Ishigaki has degraded power, water, communications, airfields, and ports; displaced thousands of residents into shelters; and overwhelmed the limited medical and logistics capacity of the outer islands. The Government of Japan (GoJ) is leading its national response and, on 15 October, requested United States Department of Defense unique capabilities — heavy and medium airlift, sea-based logistics, and maritime-domain-awareness support. USINDOPACOM has been directed to conduct mission analysis to form Joint Task Force ONYX RAIN (JTF-OR) in support of the GoJ.
+
+J2 assesses with **high confidence** the physical facts of the disaster and the resulting humanitarian requirement. Concurrently, J2 has received a growing body of reporting indicating that **a transnational criminal smuggling and diversion network is beginning to exploit the relief environment**. The reporting is fragmentary and the network’s scope, organization, and intent are assessed with **low confidence** at this time. This paper presents the road to the crisis, the indicators received to date, and the intelligence gaps, so the staff can frame collection and analysis. It deliberately does not resolve those gaps; characterizing the criminal exploitation is analytic work for the staff and partners, not a conclusion handed down in this summary.
+
+There is no state-conflict dimension to this crisis. United States forces do not operate in or around Taiwan. All law enforcement and maritime interdiction are Japanese responsibilities.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## 2. The Road to the Crisis (genesis → landfall → collapse → criminal exploitation)
+
+### 2.1 Long-term backdrop
+
+The southern Ryukyu Islands are exposed, low-capacity island communities at the southwestern end of the first island chain. They depend almost entirely on sea and air resupply from Okinawa main island and the Japanese mainland for fuel, food, and medicine, and they sit astride a region of chronic, low-level transnational smuggling. The Bashi Channel and the Kuroshio corridor between Taiwan, the Yaeyamas, and the Philippines have for years carried a background flow of contraband — untaxed fuel and goods, fisheries violations, and occasional human smuggling — handled by loosely federated criminal brokers using fishing vessels and small coastal freighters under flags of convenience. Japanese authorities (the Japan Coast Guard, the National Police Agency and Okinawa Prefectural Police, Japan Customs, and the Japan Fisheries Agency) manage this background activity as a routine law-enforcement matter. It is this pre-existing criminal ecosystem that a disaster perturbs.
+
+### 2.2 Storm genesis and intensification (08–12 October 2026)
+
+A tropical disturbance formed east of the Philippine Sea on 08 October. Favorable sea-surface temperatures (about 29 degrees Celsius) and low vertical wind shear drove rapid intensification between 10 and 12 October, with the system reaching Category-5-equivalent strength (sustained winds about 140 knots) as it tracked west-northwest toward the Sakishima Islands. The Japan Meteorological Agency issued its highest-level warnings for the Miyako and Yaeyama regions on 12 October; Okinawa Prefecture and the municipalities ordered evacuations to designated shelters on Miyakojima, Ishigaki, and the smaller islands.
+
+### 2.3 Landfall and physical effects (13–14 October 2026)
+
+KAGURA passed directly over or immediately adjacent to Miyakojima and then Ishigaki on 13–14 October. Effects assessed with high confidence:
+
+- **Wind and structural damage.** Widespread structural damage across Miyakojima and Ishigaki, with lesser damage to Yonaguni and the smaller Yaeyama islands. Power transmission and distribution networks were severely damaged on both principal islands.
+- **Flood and storm surge.** Storm surge inundated low-lying districts of Ishigaki and the Hirara waterfront on Miyakojima; flash and riverine flooding compounded the surge.
+- **Lifelines.** Widespread and sustained loss of commercial power; consequent loss of water treatment and pumping, wastewater handling, fuel dispensing, cold-chain medical storage, and most cellular and microwave communications.
+- **Ports and airfields.** Hirara Port and Ishigaki Port were debris-fouled and surge-damaged; Miyako Airport and New Ishigaki Airport sustained terminal and navigation-aid damage; Shimojishima’s long runway was obstructed by debris. Initial airfield throughput is limited and weather-dependent.
+- **Maritime-domain awareness.** Coastal surveillance radar and Automatic Identification System (AIS) shore receivers across the Miyako and Yaeyama clusters were knocked out or degraded by power loss and antenna damage, and several navigation aids and shore lights were extinguished or displaced.
+
+### 2.4 Humanitarian collapse and displacement (14–16 October 2026)
+
+By 16 October the GoJ and prefectural authorities report thousands of residents displaced into shelters on Miyakojima and Ishigaki, with significant unmet needs in potable water, power for medical facilities, fuel, and medical evacuation of acute cases from the outer islands to Okinawa main island and the mainland. Local medical and logistics capacity is overwhelmed. The GoJ has committed national means (the Japan Self-Defense Forces, the Japan Coast Guard, and civil agencies) and has requested United States support to fill validated gaps in airlift, sea-based logistics, and the degraded maritime picture.
+
+### 2.5 Emergence of criminal exploitation (reported indicators, 14–16 October 2026)
+
+In the same window, J2 — drawing on Japanese law-enforcement liaison, open-source reporting, and the maritime picture — has received indicators that the pre-existing criminal ecosystem is adapting to the disaster. These are presented as **indicators**, not as established findings:
+
+- **Commodity-flow anomalies.** Japanese logistics and prefectural liaison have noted early, unquantified discrepancies between relief commodities dispatched to certain island distribution points and the quantities recorded as received, particularly for fuel, portable generators, and pharmaceuticals. Whether these reflect diversion, recording lag, storm chaos, or a combination is not yet established.
+- **Anomalous small-craft activity.** With coastal radar and AIS degraded, the Japan Coast Guard and United States maritime patrol support have noted small-craft movements in the inter-island waters and toward the Hateruma and Yaeyama-bank approaches that do not correlate with known relief, fishing, or evacuation traffic, including vessels operating with AIS switched off or gapped.
+- **Black-market reporting.** Open-source and liaison reporting references the early reappearance of black-market fuel and goods at elevated prices on the affected islands, consistent with the pre-existing smuggling ecosystem repurposing toward scarce relief commodities.
+- **Shelter and displacement risk.** Protection actors (the International Organization for Migration and Japanese authorities) have flagged the generic, well-documented risk that displaced and sheltered populations — including vulnerable foreign nationals — are targets for exploitation and trafficking, and have noted unverified reports of unknown individuals approaching evacuees at reception points.
+- **Information manipulation.** Japanese authorities and open-source monitors have observed locally circulating rumors about relief — that aid is contaminated, that distribution favors some districts or communities over others, and that foreign responders are taking fuel — of uncertain origin, some of which appears to be amplified rather than organic.
+
+J2 does not at this time assess the degree to which these indicators are connected, directed by a single network, or merely the diffuse opportunism that follows any disaster. That characterization is a priority for collection and for staff analysis.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## 3. Threat picture — what is known, suspected, and unknown
+
+A fuller laydown is in document 03. In summary:
+
+**Known (high confidence).** A pre-existing, loosely federated transnational smuggling ecosystem operates the Bashi–Sakishima–Kuroshio corridor using fishing vessels and small coastal freighters under flags of convenience, with shore-side fences and brokers on the affected islands and along the eastern Taiwan coast. Its peacetime capability is light and commercial in character: small craft, cash, encrypted messaging, knowledge of local waters, and corrupt or coerced facilitation. It has no military, cyber, or electronic-warfare capability and no demonstrated intent to threaten responders.
+
+**Suspected (low-to-moderate confidence).** Elements of this ecosystem are repurposing toward diversion and resale of scarce relief commodities and are exploiting the degraded maritime picture to move goods inside or alongside relief traffic. One trans-shipment broker is the subject of thin, unconfirmed reporting of prior dealings with a sanctioned entity; **J2 treats this as an unresolved criminal-nexus reporting thread, not as evidence of state direction, and cautions against over-reading it.**
+
+**Unknown (the gaps).** The network’s organization and leadership; the scale and routing of diversion; which nodes and vessels are involved; the degree of central coordination versus diffuse opportunism; and the network’s intent toward the relief effort and toward vulnerable populations.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## 4. Information environment snapshot
+
+The information environment is contested in a manner typical of disasters, not by a peer adversary. Rumor and locally circulating disinformation about relief — contamination, favoritism, and foreigner-blaming narratives — are present and appear in part amplified. Their effect, if unchecked, is to suppress uptake of official aid (pushing residents toward black-market sources) and to complicate the credibility of Japanese and United States messaging. Cellular and social-media connectivity is intermittent in the disaster area but largely intact on Okinawa main island and nationally. Public information and counter-rumor activity in support of the GoJ’s messaging is an information task the staff should expect to address; the employment posture and authorities for United States information capabilities are in document 11, Annex C.
+
+## 5. Intelligence gaps and confidence assessment
+
+J2 distinguishes between confidence in the **physical/humanitarian picture** (high) and confidence in the **criminal picture** (low). The capabilities of the criminal ecosystem are reasonably well characterized at the peacetime baseline; its **intent and disaster-adapted behavior are the dominant unknowns** — the analytic weight sits on intent, not capability.
+
+Priority intelligence gaps for the staff and partners to drive collection against:
+
+1.  The relationship, if any, among the commodity-flow discrepancies, the anomalous small-craft activity, the black-market reporting, and the rumor activity — and whether they indicate one network or diffuse opportunism.
+2.  The scale and routing of any relief-commodity diversion, and the specific nodes and vessels involved, fused from logistics throughput data and the maritime picture.
+3.  The degree of restoration of the maritime-domain-awareness picture required to deconflict legitimate relief traffic from illicit movement.
+4.  The nature and reach of trafficking risk to displaced and sheltered populations, including foreign nationals.
+5.  The origin and amplification mechanism of the aid-related disinformation.
+
+These gaps are framed for collection management and for the JIPOE (document 10). They are not resolved here.
+
+## 6. Implications for mission analysis
+
+The staff’s mission analysis should reason about — not be handed answers on — at least the following:
+
+1.  How United States support best fills the validated airlift, sea-logistics, and maritime-awareness gaps while keeping the GoJ in the lead.
+2.  How to protect the integrity of the relief commodity stream when distribution-versus-receipt discrepancies may indicate diversion — a logistics-and-intelligence fusion problem, not a single-staff problem.
+3.  How United States forces deconflict their own movement and sensing with Japanese law enforcement, given that interdiction and arrest are Japanese functions and the United States does not conduct law enforcement in Japan.
+4.  How the single forward amphibious force is balanced between this relief effort and standing regional presence requirements.
+5.  How accurate information is delivered to affected populations in support of the GoJ to counter aid-suppressing rumor.
+6.  How vulnerable populations in the evacuation and shelter system are protected, with Japanese and interagency actors in the lead.
+
+*Continue to* `03_Threat_Network_Laydown.md`*.*

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/03_Threat_Network_Laydown.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# Threat Network Laydown — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** USINDOPACOM J2 threat laydown (transnational criminal smuggling and diversion ecosystem) **Information cutoff:** 160400Z OCT 26 **Source basis:** Japan Coast Guard and National Police Agency law-enforcement liaison; Japan Customs and Japan Fisheries Agency reporting; United States maritime patrol observations; open-source maritime tracking and press **Companion graphic:** 02_Situational_Map.svg / 02_Situational_Map.png **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+## 1. Scope and a caution to the reader
+
+This laydown characterizes the transnational criminal smuggling and diversion ecosystem in the Bashi Channel–Sakishima–Kuroshio corridor, both at its peacetime baseline (assessed with high confidence) and in terms of the disaster-adapted indicators received since landfall (assessed with low confidence). It is an intelligence input. It deliberately does not assert a finished, connected picture of who is diverting what, through which node, at what scale — that characterization is the fusion-and-analysis work of the staff and Japanese partners, supported by collection against the gaps listed in Section 7. Readers should resist the temptation to treat the reported indicators in Section 5 as an established network; they are reported, fragmentary, and unverified.
+
+This is a **criminal** actor. There is no organized extremist actor, no military or paramilitary capability, and no state direction in this picture.
+
+## 2. The corridor ecosystem — peacetime baseline (high confidence)
+
+The waters linking eastern Taiwan, the Yaeyama and Miyako Islands, the Bashi Channel, and the northern Philippines have for years carried a persistent low-level flow of transnational smuggling, handled as a routine law-enforcement matter by Japanese authorities and their regional counterparts. The ecosystem is not a hierarchy; it is a loosely federated set of brokers, vessel operators, and shore-side fences who cooperate transaction-by-transaction. Japanese authorities track this background activity under the informal label of the “Kuroshio Line.”
+
+Baseline commodities and activity: untaxed fuel and consumer goods, fisheries violations and trans-shipment of catch, occasional contraband, and intermittent human smuggling. Baseline volume is low and the actors are commercially, not ideologically, motivated.
+
+## 3. Known geography of the corridor (baseline; anchored to real terrain)
+
+The corridor’s known smuggling geography — the places where brokers, fences, and staging have historically operated — is anchored to real features. This is regional background, not an assertion about the current disaster:
+
+|  |  |
+|:---|----|
+| Area (real referent) | Baseline role in the corridor |
+| Hirara waterfront, Miyakojima (24.81 N, 125.28 E) | Fuel and goods brokering; small-craft access |
+| Ishigaki waterfront and harbor, Ishigaki (24.34 N, 124.16 E) | Goods distribution and trans-shipment; Yaeyama hub |
+| Hateruma / Yaeyama-bank approaches (≈24.06 N, 123.78 E) | Small-craft staging and night movement among the southern Yaeyamas |
+| Bashi Channel (≈21.5 N, 121.3 E) | Trans-shipment leg for flag-of-convenience coastal freighters |
+| Su’ao / Hualien fishing harbors, eastern Taiwan (24.59 N, 121.87 E / 23.98 N, 121.60 E) | Shore-side fence and market on the Taiwan coast — **regional context; criminal, not state** |
+
+## 4. Capabilities and tradecraft (baseline; high confidence on capability)
+
+- **Platforms.** Coastal fishing vessels and small coastal freighters, frequently under flags of convenience; unregistered sampans and skiffs for inter-island and night movement. Speeds and ranges are commercial; no organic weapons of military significance.
+
+- **Maritime concealment.** Routine use of Automatic Identification System (AIS) switching, gapping, and occasional spoofing; co-mingling with legitimate fishing and coastal traffic; exploitation of weather and night to avoid coastal radar.
+
+- **Finance.** Cash and informal value-transfer (hawala-style) networks; minimal banking footprint.
+
+- **Communications.** Commercial mobile and encrypted messaging applications.
+
+- **Facilitation.** Reliance on local knowledge, opportunistic corruption or coercion of individual handlers, and front businesses (fuel brokers, fishing cooperatives, distributors).
+
+The ecosystem has **no** cyber, electronic-warfare, space, or military capability, and no demonstrated intent or capability to threaten responder forces.
+
+## 5. Disaster-adapted indicators since landfall (low confidence; reported and unverified)
+
+The following indicators have been received since 14 October. Each is presented with its confidence and the gap it leaves open. They are **not** a confirmed network.
+
+|  |  |  |
+|:---|----|----|
+| Indicator | What was reported | Confidence / gap |
+| Commodity-flow anomaly | Unquantified discrepancies between relief fuel, generators, and pharmaceuticals dispatched to certain island distribution points and quantities recorded received | Low. Could be diversion, recording lag, or storm chaos. Requires logistics-and-intelligence fusion to characterize. |
+| Anomalous small-craft activity | Small-craft movements in inter-island waters and toward the Hateruma/Yaeyama-bank approaches not correlating with known relief, fishing, or evacuation traffic; some with AIS off or gapped | Low. Maritime picture is degraded; baseline traffic is itself disrupted. Routing, operators, and purpose unknown. |
+| Black-market reappearance | Open-source and liaison references to fuel and goods reappearing at elevated prices on the affected islands | Low–moderate. Consistent with the baseline ecosystem repurposing toward scarce commodities; scale unknown. |
+| Shelter-approach reports | Protection actors flag generic trafficking risk in displaced/sheltered populations; unverified reports of unknown individuals approaching evacuees at reception points | Low. Risk is well-documented in disasters generally; specific actors and reach unknown. |
+| Aid-related rumor | Locally circulating narratives that aid is contaminated, that distribution favors some communities, or that foreign responders are taking fuel; some apparently amplified | Low. Origin and amplification mechanism unknown; effect would be to suppress official-aid uptake. |
+| Unresolved criminal-nexus thread | Thin, single-source reporting that one trans-shipment broker may have had prior dealings with a sanctioned entity | Very low. **Treated as a criminal-nexus reporting thread only; NOT evidence of state direction. Cautioned against over-reading.** |
+
+## 6. What the threat is — and is not
+
+- It **is** an opportunistic, commercially motivated criminal ecosystem that a disaster incentivizes to scale up against scarce, high-value relief commodities and to exploit a degraded maritime picture and a vulnerable displaced population.
+
+- It **is not** a military, paramilitary, extremist, or state-directed threat. It poses no assessed kinetic threat to responder forces. Countering it is a law-enforcement problem owned by Japanese authorities, not a targeting problem owned by the joint force.
+
+## 7. Intelligence gaps and collection focus
+
+These gaps are provided to inform collection management and the development of commander’s critical information requirements by the staff; the requirements themselves are not specified here.
+
+1.  Connectivity among the commodity-flow anomalies, small-craft activity, black-market reporting, and rumor activity — one network or diffuse opportunism?
+
+2.  Scale and routing of any relief-commodity diversion, and the specific nodes and vessels involved, fused from logistics throughput and the maritime picture.
+
+3.  Restoration of maritime-domain awareness sufficient to separate legitimate relief traffic from illicit movement.
+
+4.  Reach and nature of trafficking risk in the evacuation and shelter system.
+
+5.  Origin and amplification of aid-related disinformation.
+
+## 8. Pattern of life and indicators and warnings
+
+Historic pattern: night and weather-masked small-craft movement; AIS manipulation timed to coastal-radar gaps; fences activated when commodity prices spike. Warning indicators the collection effort should watch: sustained AIS-dark small-craft tracks in relief sea lanes; widening commodity distribution-versus-receipt gaps; clustering of black-market activity near specific distribution nodes; organized approaches to shelters; coordinated rather than organic rumor surges. Cross-reference the JIPOE (document 10) for the integrated operational-environment picture.

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/04_Friendly_Partner_OOB.md

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+# Friendly and Partner Order of Battle — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** USINDOPACOM J3/J5 friendly and partner order of battle and force-posture summary **Apportionment reference date:** 16 October 2026 **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+## 1. Purpose and command frame
+
+This document lays out the forces and organizations available to, or coordinating with, Joint Task Force ONYX RAIN (JTF-OR). The Government of Japan (GoJ) is the supported authority and leads its national response; United States forces support at GoJ request. The Japan Coast Guard (JCG) and the National Police Agency (NPA) are supported for all law-enforcement and maritime-interdiction tasks. The factual command, communications, and logistics posture in Section 7 reflects the running posture as of the apportionment date.
+
+## 2. United States forces apportioned to JTF-OR
+
+USINDOPACOM has apportioned the following force pool for planning. Apportionment is the pool made available for planning; the forces actually allocated by order appear in the component Linked Execute Orders (documents 09a and 09b).
+
+|  |  |  |
+|:---|----|----|
+| Capability | Apportioned force | Home station / source |
+| JTF headquarters | III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF) staff, forming JTF-OR | Camp Courtney, Okinawa |
+| Landing force | 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (31st MEU) | Okinawa / embarked |
+| Amphibious lift | Amphibious Ready Group (Amphibious Squadron 11): USS *Coral Sea* (LHA-9), USS *Susquehanna* (LPD-31), USS *Black Rock* (LSD-53) | Sasebo, Japan |
+| Marine aviation | 1st Marine Aircraft Wing detachment: MV-22B Osprey, CH-53E, KC-130J | MCAS Futenma, Okinawa |
+| Marine logistics | 3rd Marine Logistics Group detachment | Okinawa |
+| Maritime patrol (MDA support) | Up to 2 × P-8A Poseidon (Commander, Task Force 72) | Forward, Kadena Air Base |
+| Maritime force / sealift | US Seventh Fleet, Task Force 76/3; Military Sealift Command fuel and dry-cargo ships | Yokosuka / theater |
+| Intratheater airlift | 374th Airlift Wing C-130J; 18th Wing ramp and tanker support | Yokota AB / Kadena AB |
+
+## 3. United States standing presence requirements (the competing demand)
+
+The forces apportioned above are the same forward-postured forces that hold standing United States Indo-Pacific presence and deterrence requirements. As of the apportionment date these standing requirements remain in effect and unfunded by any relief of mission:
+
+- Routine forward presence and deterrence patrols across the theater, including the single forward amphibious ready group and Marine expeditionary unit as the theater’s sole afloat crisis-response force.
+
+- Standing maritime-patrol coverage commitments that the Task Force 72 P-8A force already carries.
+
+- Intratheater airlift demands that predate the disaster.
+
+The relief mission and these standing requirements draw on one finite forward force pool. Reconciling the two is a higher-headquarters apportionment-and-allocation matter that the staff is expected to surface and quantify; it is not resolved in this order of battle.
+
+## 4. Forces not available, and why
+
+- United States Forces Korea forces are not available; they hold a fixed peninsula commitment.
+
+- A second amphibious ready group / Marine expeditionary unit is not available within the relief timeline; the theater holds one afloat.
+
+- CONUS-based follow-on forces are subject to deployment timelines measured in weeks and to Request-for-Forces (RFF) validation.
+
+## 5. Requests for Forces in process
+
+- RFF for additional rotary- and tilt-rotor lift to sustain inter-island distribution beyond the organic Marine Expeditionary Unit aviation combat element.
+
+- RFF for additional Military Sealift Command dry-cargo and fuel capacity for logistics over the shore where ports are fouled.
+
+- RFF for a maritime-patrol augment if maritime-domain-awareness support to the JCG is sustained beyond the initial period.
+
+## 6. Partner and interagency order of battle
+
+### 6.1 Government of Japan — supported, and the lead
+
+|  |  |
+|:---|----|
+| Organization | Role |
+| GoJ Major Disaster Management Headquarters (Cabinet level) | National direction and prioritization of the response |
+| Japan Self-Defense Forces Joint Task Force-Southwest (JTF-SW) | Japanese joint relief force; supported lead for relief in the operating area. Commander: LTG Kenji Arakaki, Japan Ground Self-Defense Force |
+| Japan Ground Self-Defense Force 15th Brigade (Naha) and Western Army | Ground relief; engineering; distribution support; Camp Ishigaki and Camp Yonaguni provide initial organic capacity on those islands |
+| Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force; Fleet Air Wing 5 (Naha) | Sea transport, escort, and maritime air |
+| Japan Air Self-Defense Force Southwestern Air Defense Force (Naha) | Airlift and air coordination |
+| Japan Coast Guard, 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters (Naha) | **Supported** for maritime search-and-rescue coordination, port/waterway safety, and all maritime law enforcement and interdiction. Commander: VADM-equivalent Hiroshi Tamaki, JCG |
+| National Police Agency / Okinawa Prefectural Police | **Supported** for land law enforcement, shelter and distribution-site public order, and trafficking/black-market criminal investigation |
+| Japan Customs (Okinawa Regional Customs); Japan Fisheries Agency | Supporting Japanese authorities on smuggling and fisheries enforcement |
+| Okinawa Prefectural Government; Miyakojima and Ishigaki municipalities | Local civil authority; sheltering and evacuation |
+
+### 6.2 International organizations and non-governmental organizations
+
+|  |  |
+|:---|----|
+| Organization | Role |
+| United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) | Cluster coordination — only if the GoJ internationalizes the appeal (conditional; not active at STARTEX) |
+| International Organization for Migration (IOM) | Displaced-person protection and counter-trafficking advisory |
+| International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC); Japanese Red Cross Society (JRCS) | Sheltering, relief distribution, family-links services |
+| Peace Winds Japan; Association for Aid and Relief, Japan (AAR Japan) | Japanese non-governmental relief delivery |
+
+### 6.3 United States interagency
+
+|  |  |
+|:---|----|
+| Organization | Role |
+| USAID Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA), Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) | **Lead United States Government agency** for civilian assistance; validates the requirements DoD support fills |
+| Department of State / Embassy Tokyo (Chief of Mission) | Government-to-government coordination; welfare of United States citizens |
+
+## 7. Command relationships and current posture (factual)
+
+**Command relationships (text diagram).**
+
+- The Government of Japan is the supported authority. JTF-OR supports the GoJ; coordination runs through the United States–Japan Bilateral Coordination Mechanism.
+
+- Commander, United States Forces Japan (COMUSFJ, Yokota Air Base) is the senior United States operational coordinator with the Japanese Joint Staff.
+
+- JTF-OR is formed under Commander, III MEF; operational control (OPCON) to USINDOPACOM; coordinating authority with JTF-SW.
+
+  - Marine component (09a): 31st MEU, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing detachment, 3rd Marine Logistics Group detachment.
+
+  - Maritime / air-mobility component (09b): Seventh Fleet Task Force 76/3 lift, Task Force 72 P-8A maritime-domain-awareness support, and 374th Airlift Wing / 18th Wing airlift.
+
+- The JCG (11th Region) and NPA / Okinawa Prefectural Police are supported by United States forces for law enforcement; the United States provides logistics deconfliction and, on request, maritime-domain-awareness sensing and track-sharing — not interdiction.
+
+- Liaison: JTF-OR exchanges liaison officers with JTF-SW, the JCG 11th Region, the USAID/BHA DART, and Embassy Tokyo.
+
+**Communications posture.** Okinawa main island communications are intact; the disaster-area communications are degraded (Section 6, document 06). United States–Japan coordination uses the Bilateral Coordination Mechanism nets; relief common operating picture is shared with JTF-SW and the JCG to the maximum extent.
+
+**Logistics posture.** Okinawa main island (Kadena Air Base, Naha, White Beach) is the intermediate staging base. Sea-based logistics via the amphibious ready group and Military Sealift Command; logistics over the shore by landing craft and connectors where ports are fouled; intratheater airlift into Shimojishima and New Ishigaki when reopened. The Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement governs logistics cross-servicing with the JSDF. Initial sustainment is adequate for the apportioned force; sustainment of any expanded force depends on the Requests for Forces in Section 5.

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Country Fact Sheet — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** USINDOPACOM J2 country and infrastructure fact sheet **Scope:** Japan (national level and Okinawa Prefecture); eastern Taiwan as regional storm-impact and corridor context **Effective date:** 16 October 2026 **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## 1. Japan — national level
+
+**Government and political dynamics.** Japan is a parliamentary constitutional democracy. National disaster response is led by the Cabinet, supported by the Cabinet Office Director-General for Disaster Management. For a catastrophe of this scale, the Government of Japan (GoJ) stands up a national Major Disaster Management Headquarters chaired at the Prime-Minister level, which coordinates national ministries, the affected prefecture, and the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Japanese disaster law gives prefectural governors and municipal mayors substantial authority over local response, sheltering, and evacuation, so Okinawa Prefecture and the municipalities of Miyakojima and Ishigaki are central civil actors, not merely recipients of national direction.
+
+**Decision to request United States assistance.** Japan first commits its own national means and requests foreign assistance only when a disaster exceeds national capacity. The GoJ request for United States Department of Defense unique capabilities, transmitted government-to-government through diplomatic channels on 15 October, is the legal and political trigger for United States military involvement. The request is specific and bounded — heavy and medium airlift, sea-based logistics, and maritime-domain-awareness support — and it preserves Japanese lead throughout.
+
+**Security forces (top level).** - *Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF).* For this crisis the JSDF stands up a Joint Task Force-Southwest (JTF-SW) under a Japan Ground Self-Defense Force lieutenant general, integrating ground, maritime, and air elements. The Japan Ground Self-Defense Force 15th Brigade (Naha) and Western Army provide ground relief forces; the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force provides transport and escort vessels and Fleet Air Wing 5 (Naha); the Japan Air Self-Defense Force Southwestern Air Defense Force (Naha) provides airlift and air coordination. - *Japan Coast Guard (JCG).* The 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters (Naha) owns maritime search and rescue coordination, port and waterway safety, and all maritime law enforcement and interdiction in the operating area. - *National Police Agency (NPA) and Okinawa Prefectural Police.* These own land law enforcement, public order at shelters and distribution sites, and the criminal investigation of black-market diversion and trafficking, supported by Japan Customs (Okinawa Regional Customs) and the Japan Fisheries Agency on smuggling matters.
+
+**Alignment posture.** Japan is a United States treaty ally under the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. United States–Japan disaster cooperation is well-precedented (Operation TOMODACHI, 2011). Japan’s posture in this crisis is fully aligned with the United States; the only friction in the relationship is the routine and proper one of a sovereign host nation insisting on leading its own response and retaining its own law-enforcement authority.
+
+## 2. Okinawa Prefecture — the operating area
+
+**Population and settlement.** Okinawa Prefecture comprises Okinawa main island (the population and logistics center, around 1.4 million people) and the outer Miyako and Yaeyama island groups (together on the order of a hundred thousand residents, concentrated on Miyakojima and Ishigaki). The outer islands depend almost entirely on sea and air links to Okinawa main island and the mainland for fuel, food, medicine, and goods; they have limited organic medical and logistics capacity, which a major storm rapidly overwhelms.
+
+**Critical infrastructure and storm impact.** - *Power.* Island grids on Miyako and Ishigaki are largely self-contained, served by local thermal generation and increasingly by renewables; both took heavy transmission and distribution damage, leaving widespread outages and forcing reliance on portable generators — making generators and fuel high-demand, divertible commodities. - *Water and wastewater.* Desalination and pumping depend on grid and generator power; outages cascade into water and sanitation shortfalls. - *Fuel.* The outer islands hold limited fuel stocks and depend on resupply by coastal tanker into Hirara and Ishigaki; storm damage to port fuel-handling and to the grid makes marine diesel and aviation fuel both scarce and valuable. - *Communications.* Cellular, microwave backhaul, and inter-island fiber sustained damage; coverage is intermittent. Inter-island and island-to-mainland submarine cables that carry telecommunications are a dependency, with restoration governed by Japanese carriers. - *Air and sea ports.* Detailed in document 06; in summary, Shimojishima offers the most capable runway in the disaster area when reopened, New Ishigaki is the Yaeyama hub, and the principal ports (Hirara, Ishigaki) are debris- and surge-damaged.
+
+**Critical-infrastructure interdependency.** The dependencies chain tightly: power loss disables water, fuel, cold-chain medical storage, and communications; port and airfield damage throttles the resupply that would relieve all of the above; and the scarcity of fuel, generators, and medicines creates exactly the high-value, divertible commodity stream that a criminal network can exploit. The planner should treat the commodity distribution system itself — what arrives, where it goes, and whether receipts match — as critical infrastructure to be protected, not merely as logistics.
+
+## 3. United States presence and persons
+
+**Basing and agreements.** United States Forces Japan is headquartered at Yokota Air Base; III Marine Expeditionary Force is headquartered at Camp Courtney on Okinawa main island, with Marine aviation at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and Air Force forces at Kadena Air Base. United States–Japan cooperation operates under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, the Status of Forces Agreement, and the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA), which provides the standing mechanism for logistics cross-servicing between the two forces. These agreements mean the United States can support a relief effort from inside Japan quickly and lawfully, without negotiating access from scratch.
+
+**United States and other foreign persons in the disaster area.** Beyond the concentrated United States military community on Okinawa main island (not in the disaster area), the outer Sakishima islands host a modest, dispersed foreign-national population: tourists (the Yaeyamas and Miyako are resort destinations), foreign English-language assistant teachers and other long-term residents, and a small number of United States and other foreign citizens. Numbers fluctuate seasonally and are not precisely known at the outset. Their presence is a civil-considerations factor the staff should account for; the United States Embassy and the Department of State own the welfare and any movement of United States citizens, in coordination with Japanese authorities.
+
+## 4. Eastern Taiwan — regional context only
+
+Eastern Taiwan (Hualien, Taitung, the Su’ao and Yilan area, and Lanyu/Orchid Island) lies within KAGURA’s regional impact band and along the smuggling corridor. It appears in this package solely as context: as a storm-affected coastline and as the southern shore where the criminal network is assessed to maintain a fence and trans-shipment connection. United States forces do not operate in or around Taiwan in this operation, and nothing in this package treats the criminal corridor as state-directed. Cross-strait criminal activity is treated as criminal activity.

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/06_Critical_Geography.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Critical Geography — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** USINDOPACOM J2 / J3 critical-geography and chokepoint study **Scope:** Southern Ryukyu (Sakishima) Islands; the Okinawa-to-Sakishima sea and air lines of communication; the Bashi Channel as the southern smuggling-corridor leg; eastern Taiwan as regional context **Effective date:** 16 October 2026 **Companion graphic:** 02_Situational_Map.svg / 02_Situational_Map.png (positions registered in the package facts ledger and reused across documents) **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+## 1. Theater overview
+
+The southern Ryukyu Islands lie roughly 24–25 degrees North and 122–126 degrees East, forming the southwestern reach of the first island chain between Okinawa main island and Taiwan. The operating area divides into two island clusters. The Miyako Islands, centered on Miyakojima, sit about 290 kilometers southwest of Okinawa main island. The Yaeyama Islands, centered on Ishigaki, lie a further roughly 100 kilometers southwest, and include Iriomote, Taketomi, Hateruma (the southernmost inhabited point of Japan), and Yonaguni (the westernmost inhabited point of Japan, about 108 kilometers from Hualien on the east coast of Taiwan).
+
+Okinawa main island, about 290 kilometers northeast of Miyakojima, is the intermediate staging base for the relief effort: it holds the prefectural capital (Naha), the principal airfields and ports, and the United States and Japanese installations from which support flows southwest to the disaster area.
+
+## 2. Geospatial reference table (text overlay; matches the situational map)
+
+|  |  |  |
+|:---|----|----|
+| Feature | Approx. position | Role in the operation |
+| Naha, Okinawa main island | 26.21 N, 127.65 E | Prefectural capital; intermediate staging base; Naha Airport (OKA/ROAH); Japan Coast Guard 11th Regional Headquarters |
+| Kadena Air Base | 26.36 N, 127.77 E | Primary United States air throughput and tanker/airlift coordination node |
+| Miyakojima — Hirara Port | 24.81 N, 125.28 E | Principal Miyako port; debris-fouled post-storm; relief sea-head |
+| Shimojishima Airport | 24.83 N, 125.14 E | 3,000-meter runway adjacent to Miyakojima; key intermediate throughput node when reopened |
+| Miyako Airport | 24.78 N, 125.29 E | Miyakojima airport; storm-degraded; limited throughput |
+| Ishigaki — New Ishigaki Airport | 24.40 N, 124.18 E | Regional hub for the Yaeyama Islands; 2,000-meter runway |
+| Ishigaki Port | 24.34 N, 124.16 E | Commercial and ferry hub for the Yaeyamas; surge-damaged quays |
+| Iriomote | 24.35 N, 123.80 E | Large, sparsely populated island west of Ishigaki |
+| Hateruma | 24.06 N, 123.78 E | Southernmost inhabited point of Japan; small-craft approaches |
+| Yonaguni | 24.45 N, 122.98 E | Westernmost inhabited point of Japan; ~108 km from Hualien |
+| Miyako Strait (mid) | 25.3 N, 126.2 E | Principal sea line of communication, Okinawa to Sakishima |
+| Bashi Channel (mid) | 21.5 N, 121.3 E | Major shipping lane; southern leg of the smuggling corridor |
+| Hualien / Su’ao (eastern Taiwan) | 23.98 N, 121.60 E / 24.59 N, 121.87 E | Regional storm-impact and corridor context only; no United States operations |
+
+## 3. Sea lines of communication and chokepoints
+
+**Miyako Strait (Miyako Channel).** The wide passage between Okinawa main island and the Miyako Islands is the principal maritime line of communication from the Okinawa staging base to the disaster area. It is open water, not a constrained chokepoint, but the post-storm sea state and floating debris fields driven by the Kuroshio Current complicate small-craft and connector movement.
+
+**Sakishima inter-island waters.** The waters between Miyako and the Yaeyamas, and among the Yaeyama islands themselves, are dotted with reef and shoal. Local pilotage knowledge matters; charted hazards are compounded by storm-displaced navigation buoys and damaged shore lights.
+
+**Bashi Channel.** The channel between Lanyu (Orchid Island, Taiwan) and the Batanes (Y’ami Island, Philippines) links the South China Sea and the Philippine Sea and carries heavy commercial traffic. It is the southern leg of the regional smuggling corridor and a route for flag-of-convenience small freighters. United States forces do not operate in the Bashi Channel for this operation; it is relevant as background to the maritime-domain-awareness picture.
+
+**Kuroshio Current.** The warm, northeast-setting Kuroshio runs past the Ryukyus at one to two meters per second. It shapes drift, the dispersal of storm debris, and the routing small craft can exploit, and it lends its name to the regional smuggling corridor.
+
+## 4. Key terrain — ports and airfields
+
+- **Naha (Okinawa main island).** Naha Airport (OKA/ROAH) is a joint civil and Japan Air Self-Defense Force field with long runways and full handling capacity; it and Kadena Air Base are the relief throughput and reception nodes. Naha port has commercial and ferry capacity intact.
+
+- **Shimojishima Airport (SHI/ROMD).** Its 3,000-meter runway, adjacent to Miyakojima across the Irabu bridge, is the most capable airhead in the disaster area when reopened, and is the intended intermediate throughput node for fixed-wing relief flow into the Miyako cluster.
+
+- **Miyako Airport (MMY/ROMY) and Hirara Port.** Both sustained storm damage — terminal and navigation-aid damage at the airport, debris and quay damage at the port. Initial throughput is limited and weather-dependent.
+
+- **New Ishigaki Airport (ISG/ROIG) and Ishigaki Port.** The Yaeyama hub; the airport’s 2,000-meter runway supports medium airlift once cleared; the port’s quays are surge-damaged.
+
+- **Yonaguni Airport (OGN/ROYN), Sonai and Kubura ports (Yonaguni).** Smaller facilities serving the westernmost island; lesser storm damage than Miyako and Ishigaki.
+
+Japanese garrisons in the area — Japan Ground Self-Defense Force Camp Ishigaki and Camp Yonaguni — provide initial organic response capacity on those islands and are described in the friendly order of battle (document 04).
+
+## 5. Climatology and the physical environment
+
+The operation falls in the late Western Pacific typhoon season (mid-October). Super Typhoon KAGURA has passed northeast along the Kuroshio, but the environment remains degraded: residual heavy seas subsiding from sea state 4–5, saturated ground and continued localized flooding, episodic trailing rain bands reducing ceilings and visibility, and the possibility of a follow-on disturbance later in the season. Daylight is about eleven hours. Sea-surface temperatures remain warm (about 27 degrees Celsius), sustaining convective showers. Detailed sea-state, tide, and illumination data are in document 11, Annex D (Climatology and Astronomical Data).
+
+## 6. Electromagnetic spectrum and the maritime-domain-awareness picture
+
+The storm degraded the electromagnetic and sensing environment across the disaster area. Commercial power loss and physical antenna damage have reduced or knocked out coastal surveillance radar coverage and Automatic Identification System (AIS) shore-receiver coverage across the Miyako and Yaeyama clusters; several navigation aids and shore lights are off or displaced. Cellular and microwave backhaul are intermittent where towers and fiber are damaged. The practical effect is a degraded maritime-domain-awareness picture in exactly the waters where relief sea and air traffic is densest and where small craft operate. Restoring sensing coverage, and deconflicting the surge of legitimate relief traffic, are environmental facts the planner must account for; the maritime-domain-awareness support that United States maritime patrol aircraft can provide to the Japan Coast Guard is addressed in documents 04, 09b, and 11.
+
+## 7. Cross-references
+
+The criminal network’s anchored locations and movement legs are in document 03 (Threat Network Laydown). The friendly and partner laydown is in document 04. Authorities governing operations in Japanese waters and territory are in document 11, Annex A. The situational map graphic accompanies documents 02 and 06.

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/07_SecDef_CJCS_EXORD.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+# SecDef / CJCS EXECUTE ORDER — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** Secretary of Defense–directed, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff–issued Execute Order (message-text format) **Source-Document Layer:** National-level / Joint Staff execution directive — top of the linked-order chain **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+## CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF EXECUTE ORDER
+
+**DTG:** 151800Z OCT 26 **PRECEDENCE:** IMMEDIATE
+
+**FROM:** CJCS WASHINGTON DC // JOINT STAFF J3
+
+**TO:**
+
+CDR USINDOPACOM CAMP H M SMITH HI
+
+**INFO:**
+
+WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM WASHINGTON DC\
+NSC WASHINGTON DC\
+SECDEF WASHINGTON DC\
+DEPSECDEF WASHINGTON DC\
+USD(P) WASHINGTON DC\
+ASD(IndoPac SecAffairs) WASHINGTON DC\
+SECSTATE WASHINGTON DC\
+USAID BHA WASHINGTON DC\
+CNO WASHINGTON DC\
+CMC WASHINGTON DC\
+CSAF WASHINGTON DC\
+CDR USTRANSCOM SCOTT AFB IL\
+CDR USSPACECOM PETERSON SFB CO\
+CDR USCYBERCOM FORT MEADE MD\
+CDR USFJ YOKOTA AB JA\
+COMUSPACFLT PEARL HARBOR HI\
+COMPACAF JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM HI\
+COMMARFORPAC CAMP H M SMITH HI\
+USEMBASSY TOKYO JA
+
+## SUBJECT: CJCS EXECUTE ORDER SER 044-26 — OPERATION ONYX RAIN (FOREIGN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE / DISASTER RELIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN)
+
+### REFERENCES
+
+1)  Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, 19 January 1960
+
+<!-- -->
+
+2)  United States–Japan Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) and implementing arrangements
+
+<!-- -->
+
+3)  Government of Japan request for United States assistance, transmitted by diplomatic note through Embassy Tokyo, 15 October 2026
+
+<!-- -->
+
+4)  10 United States Code § 404 (Department of Defense humanitarian assistance in response to a foreign disaster) and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended
+
+<!-- -->
+
+5)  Secretary of State foreign-disaster determination and designation of the United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA), as lead federal agency, 15 October 2026
+
+<!-- -->
+
+6)  CJCS Instruction 3121.01-series, Standing Rules of Engagement / Standing Rules for the Use of Force (SROE/SRUF) for United States Forces
+
+<!-- -->
+
+7)  USINDOPACOM Theater Campaign Plan, Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response line of effort
+
+<!-- -->
+
+8)  Joint Publication 3-29, *Foreign Humanitarian Assistance* — cited for doctrinal method only
+
+*Note on references: operational tasking and authorities in this order derive from references (a) through (g). Reference (h) is doctrine and is cited for method, not as a source of tasking authority.*
+
+### 1. SITUATION
+
+#### (a) General
+
+On 13–14 October 2026, Super Typhoon KAGURA struck the southern Ryukyu (Sakishima) Islands of Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, at Category-5-equivalent intensity, causing catastrophic damage to Miyakojima and Ishigaki. Power, water, communications, airfields, and ports are severely degraded; thousands of residents are displaced; and the medical and logistics capacity of the outer islands is overwhelmed. The Government of Japan (GoJ) is leading its national response and, per reference (c), has requested United States Department of Defense unique capabilities — heavy and medium airlift, sea-based logistics, and maritime-domain-awareness (MDA) support — to fill validated gaps. The President has authorized, and the Secretary of Defense has directed, Department of Defense support to the GoJ-led relief effort under references (a), (b), (d), and (e).
+
+#### (b) Threat / criminal activity
+
+There is no state adversary and no armed-conflict dimension to this crisis. A transnational criminal smuggling and diversion ecosystem operates the regional maritime corridor and is assessed to be adapting to exploit the relief effort through commodity diversion, contraband movement under cover of degraded MDA, exploitation of displaced populations, and aid-related disinformation. **All law enforcement and maritime interdiction against this activity are the responsibility of the Japan Coast Guard (JCG) and the National Police Agency (NPA). United States forces do not conduct law enforcement in Japan.** The threat to United States forces is assessed as negligible; the principal risk the threat poses is to the integrity and reach of the relief effort.
+
+#### (c) Friendly
+
+CDR USINDOPACOM is the supported combatant commander for the Department of Defense effort, in support of the GoJ-led response. Commander, United States Forces Japan (COMUSFJ) is the senior United States operational coordinator with the Japanese Joint Staff through the United States–Japan Bilateral Coordination Mechanism. USAID/BHA, per reference (e), is the lead federal agency for the United States Government civilian response and will deploy a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART). The Department of State, through Embassy Tokyo, leads government-to-government coordination and the welfare of United States citizens.
+
+#### (d) Civil considerations
+
+Thousands of Japanese residents are displaced into shelters on Miyakojima, Ishigaki, and the smaller islands, with acute needs in potable water, medical care and evacuation, power, and fuel. A dispersed and seasonally variable foreign-national population, including a small number of United States citizens (tourists and long-term residents), is present on the outer islands; their welfare and any movement are owned by the Department of State in coordination with Japanese authorities. Displaced and sheltered populations carry the well-documented disaster risk of exploitation and trafficking.
+
+#### (e) Assumptions
+
+- The GoJ retains the lead for its national response and for all law enforcement throughout.
+
+- The GoJ will accept United States support to validated gaps and will provide access, basing, and host-nation support under references (a) and (b).
+
+- Japanese authorities (JCG, NPA, Customs, Fisheries Agency) will exercise law-enforcement and interdiction jurisdiction.
+
+- USAID/BHA will validate the civilian-assistance requirements that Department of Defense capabilities support.
+
+- The threat will not conduct organized action against United States or Japanese forces.
+
+### 2. MISSION
+
+On order, at the request of the Government of Japan, USINDOPACOM provides Department of Defense unique capabilities in support of foreign humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations in the southern Ryukyu (Sakishima) Islands in order to save lives, mitigate human suffering, and enable the Government of Japan’s restoration of essential services.
+
+### 3. EXECUTION
+
+#### (a) Commander’s Intent (CJCS level)
+
+- **Purpose.** Deliver timely, validated United States support that complements — and does not supplant — the GoJ-led relief effort, reinforcing alliance reliability and the integrity of the relief itself.
+
+- **Method.** Department of Defense provides unique airlift, sea-based logistics, engineering, and MDA-support capabilities against gaps validated by USAID/BHA and the GoJ, integrated through the Bilateral Coordination Mechanism, with the GoJ supported and the United States in support. Law-enforcement and interdiction tasks remain Japanese; United States forces deconflict their movement and sensing with Japanese authorities and provide MDA support to the JCG on request.
+
+- **End-state.** Validated life-saving and essential-service gaps are met; Japanese civil capacity and commercial mechanisms resume the relief; United States forces transition out as gaps close; the alliance relationship and the integrity of the relief effort are preserved.
+
+#### (b) Concept of the operation (CJCS level)
+
+USINDOPACOM forms a Joint Task Force to conduct the relief-support mission from the Okinawa intermediate staging base into the Sakishima disaster area, along three mutually supporting lines of effort, executed in parallel:
+
+- **Line of effort 1 — Life-saving relief and essential services.** Provide airlift, sea-based logistics, medical evacuation support, and engineering to meet validated needs (water, medical, power, fuel, debris clearance to reopen airfields and ports) in order to reduce loss of life and human suffering.
+
+- **Line of effort 2 — Relief-integrity and maritime-domain-awareness support.** Provide MDA sensing and track-sharing support to the JCG, and protect the integrity of the relief commodity flow through visibility and accountability of United States–moved cargo, in order to enable Japanese authorities to detect and act against diversion and illicit movement.
+
+- **Line of effort 3 — Information and protection support.** Support the GoJ’s public-information effort with accurate, timely relief information, and support Japanese and interagency protection of vulnerable populations, in order to sustain aid uptake and reduce exploitation risk.
+
+#### (c) Tasks to subordinate and supporting commands
+
+|  |  |
+|:---|----|
+| Command | Task and purpose |
+| CDR USINDOPACOM | **Supported commander.** Execute Operation ONYX RAIN; form and employ a Joint Task Force under COMUSFJ / III Marine Expeditionary Force in order to deliver Department of Defense support to the GoJ-led relief. Designate component commanders and issue the USINDOPACOM Linked Execute Order to components NLT 160300Z OCT 26 in order to allocate forces and synchronize execution. Surface to the Joint Staff any apportionment conflict between this mission and standing theater presence requirements in order to inform national prioritization. |
+| CDR USTRANSCOM | **Supporting.** Provide strategic and intratheater airlift augmentation as requested in order to surge relief throughput into the Okinawa staging base and the disaster-area airfields. |
+| CDR USSPACECOM | **Supporting.** Provide space-based imagery, environmental, and satellite-communications support in order to enable damage assessment, the common operating picture, and communications into the degraded disaster area. |
+| CDR USCYBERCOM | **Supporting.** Provide cybersecurity support to deployed mission systems in order to protect the relief command-and-control and logistics networks. No offensive cyber action is authorized or required. |
+| COMUSFJ | **Supporting / coordinating.** Lead United States coordination with the Japanese Joint Staff through the Bilateral Coordination Mechanism in order to integrate United States support with the GoJ-led response and JTF-Southwest. |
+
+#### (d) Coordinating instructions
+
+- **Authorities and law enforcement.** United States forces are authorized to conduct foreign humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief tasks under references (a), (b), and (d). United States forces are **not** authorized to conduct law enforcement, search, seizure, arrest, or maritime interdiction; those functions are exercised by the JCG and NPA. United States MDA support to the JCG is limited to sensing, detection, and track-sharing, conditioned on a JCG request and Department of State concurrence.
+
+- **Rules for the use of force.** The Standing Rules for the Use of Force, reference (f), apply for force protection and individual self-defense. This is a permissive humanitarian environment; no mission-specific escalation of force is directed.
+
+- **Information capabilities.** Military information support and public-affairs activities are employed in support of the GoJ’s public-information effort and Embassy Tokyo messaging, with Chief-of-Mission and Department of State approval, in order to deliver accurate relief information and counter aid-related rumor. Electromagnetic-spectrum operations are employed for MDA sensing, navigation in the degraded environment, and direction-finding support to the JCG within standing authorities and host-nation coordination. No capability integral to the mission is prohibited; constraints, where they exist, are stated as authority and condition in this order and in document 11, Annex A and Annex C.
+
+- **Interagency.** USAID/BHA (lead federal agency) validates civilian-assistance requirements; Department of Defense support fills validated gaps and transitions them back as civilian and host-nation capacity recovers.
+
+- **Reporting.** Initial reporting requirements are issued in the USINDOPACOM Linked Execute Order. Immediate report to the Joint Staff on (i) any mass-casualty or major secondary event, (ii) any harm or threat to United States forces or citizens, (iii) any GoJ request that would expand the mission or the force, and (iv) any indication that the relief effort is being materially undermined by criminal exploitation.
+
+### 4. SUSTAINMENT / LOGISTICS
+
+- Okinawa main island (Kadena Air Base, Naha, White Beach Naval Facility) is the intermediate staging base.
+
+- Logistics cross-servicing with the Japan Self-Defense Forces is conducted under reference (b) (ACSA).
+
+- Strategic and intratheater lift coordinated with USTRANSCOM; sea-based sustainment via Military Sealift Command.
+
+### 5. COMMAND AND SIGNAL
+
+- **Supported commander:** CDR USINDOPACOM.
+
+- **Supporting commanders:** CDR USTRANSCOM, CDR USSPACECOM, CDR USCYBERCOM.
+
+- **Senior United States coordinator with the GoJ:** COMUSFJ (Bilateral Coordination Mechanism).
+
+- **Interagency:** USAID/BHA (lead federal agency); Department of State / Embassy Tokyo.
+
+- **Strategic communications:** Department of State / Embassy Tokyo with National Security Council Public Affairs coordination; Department of Defense public affairs supports.
+
+### 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REQUIRED
+
+CDR USINDOPACOM acknowledge by 152200Z OCT 26. USINDOPACOM Linked Execute Order to components due NLT 160300Z OCT 26.
+
+CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
+
+## Annexes referenced (Joint Staff level)
+
+- Annex A — Operational Law / Authorities (treaty, ACSA, 10 U.S.C. § 404, law-enforcement boundary) — see 11_Annexes.md
+
+- Annex B — Cyber (defensive support to mission systems) — see 11_Annexes.md
+
+- Annex C — Information / Public Affairs / Military Information Support employment posture — see 11_Annexes.md
+
+- Annex D — Climatology and Astronomical Data — see 11_Annexes.md
+
+- Annex E — Foreign Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Relief coordination — see 11_Annexes.md
+
+- Annex F — Interagency Coordination (USAID/BHA, Department of State) — see 11_Annexes.md

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/10_JIPOE_Brief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (JIPOE) Brief — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** USINDOPACOM J2 / Joint Task Force ONYX RAIN J2 JIPOE Brief (executive structure) **From:** Joint Task Force ONYX RAIN J2, with USINDOPACOM J2 support **DTG of issue:** 160500Z OCT 26 **Method reference:** Joint Publication 2-01.3 (JIPOE) — doctrinal method **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+> This brief frames the operational environment, the threat, and the intelligence gaps for the mission-analysis staff. It presents indicators and competing hypotheses; it does not assert finished findings about the criminal exploitation, which require fusion and collection to confirm.
+
+## Title
+
+Operation ONYX RAIN — JIPOE Brief. Area of responsibility: USINDOPACOM. Operating area: southern Ryukyu (Sakishima) Islands, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. Briefing date: 16 October 2026.
+
+## Step 1 — Define the operational environment
+
+**Joint operational area.** The Miyako and Yaeyama Island clusters and the surrounding waters, with the Okinawa main island intermediate staging base to the northeast and the Miyako Strait as the principal sea line of communication. **Area of interest.** The wider Bashi Channel–Kuroshio corridor (south to the Bashi Channel, west to eastern Taiwan as context only), through which the regional smuggling ecosystem operates and from which weather and maritime traffic flow.
+
+**Defining characteristics.** A catastrophic-disaster environment: degraded power, water, communications, ports, and airfields; thousands displaced; a degraded maritime-domain-awareness (MDA) picture from storm damage to coastal radar and the Automatic Identification System (AIS); a permissive security environment with no state or armed adversary; and an opportunistic transnational criminal ecosystem adapting to the relief environment. The Government of Japan leads; the United States supports; Japanese authorities own law enforcement.
+
+## Step 2 — Describe the impact of the operational environment (PMESII-PT)
+
+- **Political (P).** Government of Japan in the lead through a national Major Disaster Management Headquarters; Okinawa Prefecture and the Miyakojima and Ishigaki municipalities as local civil authorities; the United States supporting under treaty. Politically straightforward and aligned; the standing sensitivity is host-nation lead and sovereignty.
+
+- **Military (M).** Japan Self-Defense Forces Joint Task Force-Southwest, Japan Coast Guard (JCG) 11th Region, and Japanese police are the lead Japanese actors; United States JTF ONYX RAIN supports. No military threat.
+
+- **Economic (E).** Outer-island economies depend on sea/air resupply; storm damage has created acute scarcity of fuel, generators, and medicines — the high-value, divertible commodity stream.
+
+- **Social (S).** Thousands displaced into shelters; vulnerable populations (elderly, medically fragile, foreign nationals) concentrated; community trust susceptible to rumor.
+
+- **Information (I).** Intermittent connectivity in the disaster area; locally circulating aid-related rumor (contamination, favoritism, foreigner-blaming), some apparently amplified; national and Okinawa-main-island connectivity intact.
+
+- **Infrastructure (I).** Power, water, communications, ports, and airfields degraded; the relief distribution system itself is a critical infrastructure to be protected.
+
+- **Physical environment (PE).** Late typhoon season; residual heavy seas subsiding; trailing rain bands; warm sea-surface temperatures; about eleven hours of daylight; debris fields set by the Kuroshio.
+
+- **Time (T).** Life-saving needs (medical, water) are most acute in the first operational periods; airfield and port reopening is the pacing factor for relief throughput.
+
+## Step 3 — Evaluate the threat
+
+The threat is a transnational criminal smuggling and diversion ecosystem (see document 03), not a military adversary. Applying the capabilities-versus-intent distinction:
+
+- **Capabilities (assessed with moderate-to-high confidence).** Small craft and small coastal freighters under flags of convenience; AIS manipulation; cash and informal value transfer; encrypted messaging; local knowledge; opportunistic facilitation and front businesses. No military, cyber, electronic-warfare, or space capability. No capability to threaten responder forces.
+
+- **Intent and disaster-adapted behavior (assessed with low confidence — the dominant unknown).** Reporting indicates the ecosystem is repurposing toward scarce relief commodities and exploiting the degraded maritime picture, but the scale, routing, organization, and degree of central coordination are unknown. The analytic weight is on intent and behavior, not capability.
+
+- **Center-of-gravity framing (intelligence view, offered for staff use).** If the activity is materially organized, its sources of strength are likely the broker/fence relationships and the concealment afforded by the degraded MDA picture and co-mingled relief traffic; its vulnerabilities are the same accountability and sensing the relief effort can restore. The staff will develop the operational implications.
+
+## Step 4 — Threat courses of action (competing hypotheses; not yet confirmed)
+
+J2 carries three plausible, non-exclusive hypotheses for how the criminal ecosystem is adapting. These are **hypotheses to drive collection**, not findings; the degree to which any, all, or none are occurring — and whether they reflect one network or diffuse opportunism — is unresolved.
+
+**Hypothesis A — Commodity diversion at scale.** Brokers divert relief fuel, generators, and medicines from island distribution points for black-market resale. *Indicators:* widening distribution-versus-receipt discrepancies; clustering of black-market activity near specific distribution nodes; commodity prices spiking then easing as illicit supply arrives.
+
+**Hypothesis B — Corridor exploitation under the MDA gap.** Operators move contraband (and diverted goods) inside or alongside relief sea and air traffic, exploiting degraded radar/AIS. *Indicators:* sustained AIS-dark small-craft tracks in relief sea lanes; small-craft movements toward the Hateruma/Yaeyama-bank approaches uncorrelated with relief, fishing, or evacuation; trans-shipment activity along the Bashi leg.
+
+**Hypothesis C — Exploitation of displaced populations.** Facilitators target shelters and reception points for trafficking of vulnerable evacuees. *Indicators:* organized approaches to evacuees; unaccounted movement of vulnerable persons out of the shelter system; recruiter activity reported by protection actors.
+
+J2 does not at this time rank these as most-likely / most-dangerous, because the reporting is insufficient to do so responsibly. The most-dangerous outcome for the **mission** is that any of the above materially suppresses aid uptake or undermines confidence in the relief; the most-dangerous for **vulnerable persons** is Hypothesis C.
+
+## Indications and warnings (collection focus)
+
+|  |  |  |
+|:---|----|----|
+| Indicator | Hypothesis | Collection means (lead) |
+| Widening distribution-versus-receipt commodity gaps | A | Logistics throughput data + Japanese liaison (J4/J2 fusion) |
+| Clustering of black-market activity at nodes | A | Open-source + NPA / prefectural police liaison |
+| Sustained AIS-dark small-craft in relief lanes | B | MDA support to JCG (P-8A sensing/track-share) + JCG |
+| Small-craft toward Hateruma/Yaeyama-bank approaches | B | MDA support to JCG + JCG patrol |
+| Trans-shipment along the Bashi leg | B | Regional maritime tracking (context) |
+| Organized approaches to evacuees | C | IOM / Japanese protection actors + police |
+| Coordinated aid-rumor surges | A/B | Information environment monitoring + Embassy Tokyo |
+
+## Confidence assessment
+
+High confidence in the physical and humanitarian picture and in the threat’s peacetime capabilities. Low confidence in the threat’s current scale, organization, intent, and the connectivity of the indicators. The single-source criminal-nexus thread (possible prior dealing with a sanctioned entity) is very-low-confidence and is treated as a criminal matter, not state direction.
+
+## Implications for JIPOE consumers (the mission-analysis staff)
+
+The staff should: drive collection against the gaps above; design logistics-and-intelligence fusion to characterize possible diversion; plan MDA support to the JCG that recovers the maritime picture and feeds Japanese law enforcement without the United States conducting law enforcement; account for the apportionment tension on the single forward amphibious force; plan accurate-information delivery in support of the Government of Japan; and surface protection of vulnerable populations with Japanese and interagency actors in the lead. The operational answers are the staff’s to develop.

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/11_Annexes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Annexes — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** Supporting annexes to the Operation ONYX RAIN order chain **DTG of issue:** 160500Z OCT 26 **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+## Annex A — Operational Law and Authorities
+
+**Legal basis for United States involvement.** United States support is provided at the request of the Government of Japan (diplomatic note, 15 October 2026) under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan (1960). Department of Defense foreign-disaster assistance is provided under Title 10, United States Code, Section 404, following the Secretary of State’s foreign-disaster determination and designation of the United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (USAID/BHA), as lead federal agency. Logistics cross-servicing with the Japan Self-Defense Forces is conducted under the United States–Japan Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA). The Status of Forces Agreement governs the status of United States forces in Japan.
+
+**Law-enforcement boundary (authority and condition — not a prohibition of capability).** Law enforcement, criminal investigation, search, seizure, arrest, and maritime interdiction within Japanese territory and waters are exercised by the Japan Coast Guard (JCG) and the National Police Agency (NPA) / Okinawa Prefectural Police, supported by Japan Customs and the Japan Fisheries Agency. United States forces do not exercise these functions. This is a matter of authority and host-nation sovereignty, not of capability: where United States sensing or information is relevant to a Japanese law-enforcement matter, it is provided to Japanese authorities (maritime-domain-awareness support to the JCG, conditioned on a JCG request and Department of State concurrence; observations referred through the Joint Task Force). United States forces retain the inherent right of self-defense at all times.
+
+**Rules for the use of force.** The Standing Rules for the Use of Force (CJCS Instruction 3121.01-series) apply for force protection and individual self-defense. The environment is permissive and humanitarian; no mission-specific escalation of force is directed. Use-of-force questions arising from contact with criminal activity are resolved by referral to Japanese authorities, not by United States enforcement action.
+
+**Protection-of-civilians and trafficking-in-persons obligations.** United States forces comply with United States anti-trafficking policy and support, in a supporting role, Japanese and interagency efforts to protect vulnerable displaced populations from exploitation.
+
+## Annex B — Cyber
+
+United States cyber activity in this operation is **defensive support to mission systems only**: protection of the relief command-and-control, common-operating-picture, and logistics networks, and of the maritime-domain-awareness data exchange with the JCG, against criminal or opportunistic interference. United States Cyber Command provides cybersecurity support in a supporting role. No offensive cyber operations are authorized or required. Coordination of any cyber matter affecting Japanese networks runs through the Bilateral Coordination Mechanism and Japanese authorities.
+
+## Annex C — Information, Public Affairs, and Military Information Support (employment posture)
+
+Information capabilities integral to a disaster response are **employed**, with stated authorities and conditions — not stripped out.
+
+- **Public Affairs.** The Department of State / Embassy Tokyo leads United States public communication; Department of Defense public affairs supports. Themes per document 01, Section 6: Japan leads and the United States supports; the alliance delivers; relief is transparent and reaches all communities; accurate information is itself relief.
+
+- **Military Information Support Operations (MISO).** MISO capabilities are employed in support of the Government of Japan’s public-information effort and Embassy Tokyo messaging, with Chief-of-Mission approval, to deliver accurate, timely relief information to affected populations and to counter aid-related rumor and disinformation that suppresses aid uptake. MISO is conducted in support of, and consistent with, Japanese government messaging; it is not employed against Japanese audiences independently of the Government of Japan and Chief of Mission.
+
+- **Electromagnetic-spectrum operations.** Spectrum operations support maritime-domain awareness, navigation in the degraded environment, and direction-finding support to the JCG (for example, against vessels manipulating the Automatic Identification System), conducted within standing authorities and host-nation coordination. There is no blanket restriction on these capabilities; where a constraint applies, it is stated as an authority and a condition.
+
+- **Counter-disinformation.** The information staff, with Embassy Tokyo and Japanese authorities, monitors and counters aid-related rumor through accurate public information; attribution of disinformation is an intelligence and law-enforcement matter handled with Japanese partners.
+
+## Annex D — Climatology and Astronomical Data (produced)
+
+*Operating-area conditions for the planning window (16–23 October 2026), Sakishima Islands.*
+
+|  |  |
+|:---|----|
+| Parameter | Value / trend |
+| Synoptic situation | Super Typhoon KAGURA departed northeast along the Kuroshio after 15 October; trailing rain bands and a residual swell remain; secondary disturbance possible later in the season |
+| Sea state | 4–5 subsiding to 2–3 over the window; inter-island connector operations marginal early, improving |
+| Surface wind | 15–25 knots subsiding to 10–15 knots; gusty in rain bands |
+| Ceiling / visibility | Periodic low ceilings and 3–6 kilometers visibility in rain bands; otherwise improving to visual conditions |
+| Sea-surface temperature | ~27 °C |
+| Tides | Semidiurnal, range ~1.5–2.0 m; affects logistics-over-the-shore and beach/quay access timing |
+| Sunrise / sunset (approx., local) | ~0625 / ~1815; ~11 hours of daylight |
+| Illumination | Waning moon through the window; low natural illumination late at night — relevant to nighttime small-craft movement and to MDA |
+| Satellite coverage | Imagery and environmental satellite coverage coordinated through United States Space Command; revisit adequate for daily damage assessment (cloud-dependent) |
+
+## Annex E — Time, Date, and Reference Conventions
+
+- All date-time groups in Zulu (Z) unless annotated. Japan Standard Time is Zulu plus nine hours (local zone “I”).
+
+- STARTEX: 160600Z OCT 26 (1500I, 16 October 2026).
+
+- Distances in nautical miles (maritime/air) or kilometers (land) as noted; positions in decimal degrees per the facts ledger and document 06.
+
+- Order chain: CJCS Execute Order SER 044-26 (07) → USINDOPACOM Linked Execute Order SER 002-26 (08) → component Linked Execute Orders SER 003-26 (09a) and SER 004-26 (09b).
+
+## Annex F — Foreign Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Relief Coordination
+
+USAID/BHA is the lead federal agency and deploys a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) that validates the civilian-assistance requirements Department of Defense capabilities support. Civil-military coordination integrates the Government of Japan’s Major Disaster Management Headquarters, Japan Self-Defense Forces Joint Task Force-Southwest, the Okinawa Prefectural Government and municipalities, the DART, and non-governmental and international organizations (Japanese Red Cross Society, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Peace Winds Japan, Association for Aid and Relief Japan; the International Organization for Migration on protection). If the Government of Japan internationalizes the appeal, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs cluster coordination would activate; it is not active at STARTEX. Department of Defense capabilities fill validated gaps and transition them back as civilian and host-nation capacity recovers. *(Method per Joint Publication 3-29, cited for doctrine only.)*
+
+## Annex G — Assisted Departure / Noncombatant Evacuation Planning Consideration
+
+A dispersed, seasonally variable foreign-national population — tourists, long-term residents and assistant language teachers, and a small number of United States citizens — is present on the outer Sakishima islands; exact numbers are not established at STARTEX. The welfare and any movement of United States citizens is owned by the Department of State / Embassy Tokyo, in coordination with Japanese authorities, and would normally be handled within the Japanese-led evacuation of affected residents. Should conditions warrant Department of State request for Department of Defense support to an assisted departure of United States or third-country nationals, that support would be planned as a branch; the trigger, scope, and requirement are not established at this time and are a planning consideration, not a directed task. *(Method per Joint Publication 3-68, cited for doctrine only.)*

packets/C10_ONYX_RAIN/16_OSINT_Bundle.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) Bundle — Operation ONYX RAIN
+
+**Product Type:** Open-source reporting compilation (press, maritime tracking, social media, non-governmental situation reports) **Compiled by:** JTF ONYX RAIN J2 open-source cell **Information cutoff:** 160500Z OCT 26 **Reliability convention:** Source reliability A–F / information credibility 1–6 (Admiralty scale); most open-source items below are rated C–F / 3–5 and are **unverified** **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+> Raw open-source items are reproduced as collected to support staff fusion. They are unverified, of mixed reliability, and include routine noise alongside potential indicators. Nothing here is a finished assessment.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## 1. Storm and damage (high-volume, generally corroborated)
+
+- **\[Wire service, 14 OCT, B2\]** Japan Meteorological Agency confirms Super Typhoon KAGURA passed over Miyakojima and Ishigaki at peak intensity 13–14 OCT; “catastrophic” damage reported; power and water out across both islands.
+- **\[Japanese national broadcaster, 15 OCT, B2\]** Okinawa Prefecture reports thousands sheltered on Miyakojima and Ishigaki; Hirara and Ishigaki ports debris-fouled; New Ishigaki and Miyako airports damaged; Shimojishima runway being cleared.
+- **\[Aviation-tracking hobbyist feed, 15 OCT, D4\]** Notes first Japan Self-Defense Force C-2 and helicopter relief flights into Naha and limited rotary movement toward Miyako.
+- **\[Local newspaper, Ishigaki, 15 OCT, C3\]** Hospitals on Ishigaki running on generators; fuel for generators described by residents as “the thing everyone is looking for.”
+
+## 2. Maritime activity (mixed; potential indicators)
+
+- **\[Commercial AIS aggregator, 15 OCT, C3\]** Several small vessels in the southern Yaeyama waters showing intermittent or absent AIS returns; aggregator notes coverage itself is degraded by shore-station outages, so absence of AIS “should not be over-interpreted.”
+- **\[Regional shipping forum post, 15 OCT, E5\]** Anonymous post claims “the usual boats are busy again” around the Yaeyamas since the storm; no specifics; unverified.
+- **\[Maritime-tracking blog, 14 OCT, D4\]** Routine note of elevated coastal-freighter movement in the Bashi Channel consistent with seasonal patterns; no anomaly asserted.
+- **\[Fishing-cooperative social post, Hateruma, 15 OCT, E5\]** Resident complains of “strange boats at night” off the south coast; comments dispute whether these are relief, fishermen returning, or “smugglers.”
+
+## 3. Markets and commodities (potential indicators)
+
+- **\[Local message board, Miyakojima, 15 OCT, D4\]** Posts report gasoline and diesel available “off the books” at high prices near the Hirara waterfront; other posts call this rumor.
+- **\[Consumer-affairs press item, 16 OCT, C3\]** Okinawa Prefecture warns residents against buying relief supplies, including medicines, from unofficial sellers; says official aid is free and warns of counterfeit or spoiled goods.
+- **\[Pharmacy-sector trade note, 15 OCT, D4\]** Notes cold-chain disruption on the outer islands risks spoilage of temperature-sensitive medicines; does not allege diversion.
+
+## 4. Information environment (potential indicators)
+
+- **\[Social-media monitoring summary, 16 OCT, C3\]** Locally circulating claims that relief water/food is “contaminated,” that aid “only goes to certain neighborhoods,” and that “foreign troops are taking the fuel.” Monitoring note: some posts appear amplified by a small number of accounts rather than organically spreading; origin unclear.
+- **\[Influencer video, 15 OCT, E5\]** A widely shared video alleges favoritism in shelter supplies on Ishigaki; prefecture later disputes the specifics.
+- **\[Diaspora forum, 15 OCT, F6\]** Speculation that the smuggling is “backed by a foreign government”; no evidence offered; flagged here only because it recurs.
+
+## 5. Protection and population (potential indicators)
+
+- **\[International non-governmental organization flash update, 16 OCT, C3\]** International Organization for Migration-affiliated note reminds responders that displaced and sheltered populations — especially women, children, and isolated foreign nationals — are at elevated risk of exploitation and trafficking after disasters, and asks that reception points be monitored.
+- **\[Volunteer post, Ishigaki shelter, 15 OCT, E5\]** Volunteer mentions “people we don’t recognize” approaching evacuees offering transport off-island; unverified; could be informal good-samaritan activity or something else.
+
+## 6. Foreign nationals (context)
+
+- **\[Travel-advisory aggregator, 15 OCT, C3\]** Several countries advise nationals to follow Japanese authorities’ instructions; note that tourists are among those sheltered on the Yaeyamas and Miyako.
+- **\[Consular social post, 15 OCT, C3\]** Embassy Tokyo advises United States citizens in the affected area to register their status and follow Japanese authorities; says it is coordinating with Japanese counterparts.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+## Analyst note (open-source cell)
+
+The open-source picture is consistent with both interpretations the staff must weigh: ordinary post-disaster chaos and rumor, and the early signature of an opportunistic criminal ecosystem repurposing toward the relief. The items above are individually weak and collectively suggestive; none is confirmation. They are provided to support fusion with logistics throughput data, the maritime picture, and Japanese law-enforcement liaison — not as conclusions.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/01_Strategic_Context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# Strategic Context — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Strategic Guidance Compilation (synthetic excerpts)
+**Scope:** European Theater / High North — strategic framing for the protection of critical undersea infrastructure (CUI) in the Norwegian and Barents Seas
+**Effective Date:** 14 JAN 26
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+**Reference Frameworks:** DIME / DIMEFIL; JP 1, JP 3-0 (2022), JP 5-0; National Security Strategy; National Defense Strategy; National Military Strategy; National Strategy for the Arctic Region / US High North guidance; NATO Washington Treaty (Arts. 4 and 5); UNCLOS (Arts. 113–115); Svalbard Treaty (1920)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Purpose
+
+This document compiles the strategic guidance relevant to USEUCOM planning for Operation SILENT FATHOM. It is a synthetic compilation of national- and department-level guidance excerpts, abridged and arranged to inform mission analysis. It is not itself a directive; directive authority for this operation flows through the CJCS and USEUCOM EXORDs (documents 07–08). The strategic posture throughout is competition below the threshold of armed conflict, conducted in a NATO Allied and coalition authorities environment.
+
+## 2. National Security Strategy — High North / Russia Excerpts (Synthetic)
+
+### 2.1 Overarching national interests
+
+US national strategy treats a stable, rules-based High North and the integrity of the transatlantic alliance as enduring interests. Three lines recur in the guidance: deterrence of Russian aggression and coercion along NATO's northern flank; reassurance of Allies and preservation of Alliance cohesion; and the protection of the critical infrastructure — increasingly including undersea cables and energy interconnectors — on which allied economies, governance, and military command-and-control depend. The High North is characterized as a region of growing strategic competition where commercial, scientific, and military activity overlap and where gray-zone, sub-threshold actions are the most likely form of confrontation.
+
+### 2.2 Strategic priorities in the region
+
+- **Deterrence of Russia.** Guidance directs the United States to deny Russia the ability to coerce Allies or to degrade allied infrastructure through deniable, sub-threshold means, while avoiding actions that hand Moscow a pretext for escalation.
+- **Allied reassurance and NATO cohesion.** The credibility of the Alliance rests on visible solidarity with exposed Allies. The recent accession of Finland and Sweden expands NATO's northern reach but also lengthens the frontage to be reassured and defended.
+- **Protection of critical (incl. undersea) infrastructure.** Subsea cables and interconnectors are named as a category of critical infrastructure whose disruption produces strategic, not merely commercial, effect; their protection is a shared Alliance responsibility.
+- **Freedom of navigation and the rule of law at sea.** The United States upholds UNCLOS navigational freedoms and the lawful regime governing submarine cables, even where that regime affords only limited enforcement authority against damage in international waters.
+
+### 2.3 Integration of the instruments of national power (DIME)
+
+- **Diplomatic.** The Department of State leads. The United States works through the North Atlantic Council to support the Article 4 consultations requested by the Kingdom of Norway, coordinates a common Allied position on attribution and response, and engages bilaterally with Norway, the United Kingdom, the Nordic Allies, and Iceland. Embassy Oslo (Chief of Mission, Hon. Patricia Donnelly) is the in-country focal point.
+- **Information.** US and Allied messaging affirms Norwegian sovereignty and Alliance unity, frames CUI protection as defensive and lawful, and contests the Russian attribution-denial narrative ("trawler/anchor accident," "NATO false flag") without making public attribution claims ahead of NCA and NATO coordination.
+- **Military.** USEUCOM is the supported combatant command. The military instrument supports a State-led, NATO-framed political effort: surveillance and protection of CUI, escort of cable-repair operations, detection and shadowing of suspect vessels, enabling of attribution, PNT-resilient operations, and calibrated deterrent signaling — all below the armed-conflict threshold.
+- **Economic.** Treasury (OFAC) prepares contingency measures against entities implicated in seabed sabotage and shadow-fleet operations; the economic instrument is held in reserve pending attribution confidence and Allied alignment.
+
+## 3. National Defense Strategy — DoW-Specific Excerpts (Synthetic)
+
+### 3.1 Integrated deterrence and the competition continuum
+
+The NDS frames Russia as an acute threat and directs integrated deterrence across domains, instruments, theaters, and allies. It explicitly recognizes the competition continuum: adversaries pursue objectives through coercion and deniable action calibrated to stay below the level that would trigger a collective-defense response. Seabed warfare against undersea infrastructure is treated as a characteristic gray-zone method — high in strategic effect, low in attributability.
+
+### 3.2 Force allocation priorities and competing demands
+
+The NDS and Global Force Management process establish that High North contingencies are resourced against standing global demand. USEUCOM holds a finite pool of high-demand, low-density enablers — ocean surveillance, undersea ISR, maritime patrol aircraft, and space/PNT support — for which the seabed-forensics, domain-awareness, and counter-EW tasks of SILENT FATHOM compete directly. Planners are directed to justify any allocated capability against opportunity cost across the theater.
+
+### 3.3 NDS direction relevant to this operation
+
+- Deter further Russian sub-threshold action against allied critical infrastructure without crossing into armed conflict.
+- Strengthen Alliance interoperability and reassure Allies through visible, lawful presence.
+- Treat the protection of critical undersea infrastructure as a combined civil-military problem requiring interagency (DOJ/FBI, DHS/CISA) and multi-CCMD (USSPACECOM, USCYBERCOM) integration.
+- Operate within statutory and treaty limits, recognizing that the binding constraints in this problem are as much legal-jurisdictional as military.
+
+## 4. National Military Strategy — Joint Force Direction (Synthetic)
+
+The NMS directs the Joint Force to compete effectively in the gray zone and to be able to respond to crises on NATO's northern flank without ceding escalation control. For SILENT FATHOM this manifests as: (a) a preference for maritime and undersea options that develop the domain-awareness and attribution picture while signaling resolve; (b) integration with NATO MARCOM's Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell and the Norwegian Joint Headquarters; and (c) deliberate escalation management against an adversary employing deniable means — calibrated to deter repetition without manufacturing the confrontation that overt force would risk.
+
+## 5. Regional Strategy Excerpts — US High North Guidance (Synthetic)
+
+### 5.1 The High North framework
+
+US Arctic / High North strategy describes a region transitioning from low tension to active competition, where Russia maintains a concentrated military presence on the Kola Peninsula and seeks to normalize a posture of control over the approaches. It directs the United States to sustain awareness across the maritime and undersea domains, to operate in concert with Arctic Allies, and to uphold the freedom of the seas and the lawful undersea-cable regime, while recognizing the operational friction imposed by the polar environment.
+
+### 5.2 Allied and partner positions (convergent intent, divergent thresholds)
+
+- **Norway (host/lead).** Most directly affected; has requested Allied support and invoked Article 4 consultations. Norwegian sovereignty over Finnmark, Troms, and the Svalbard archipelago is central; the Svalbard Treaty's demilitarization nuance constrains the posture acceptable around the archipelago.
+- **United Kingdom.** Forward-leaning on seabed warfare; contributes a multi-role ocean surveillance capability and a frigate; shares the assessment that CUI protection is an Alliance priority.
+- **Finland and Sweden (NATO members).** Newly inside the Alliance; raise both the value and the frontage of the northern flank; supportive of a measured, lawful response.
+- **Iceland and Denmark.** Exposed along the trans-Atlantic cable routes; support reassurance and CUI protection within national caveats.
+- **Divergence on thresholds.** Allies converge on the need to deter and to develop attribution but differ on the evidentiary threshold for public attribution and on the level of response that competition (vice Article 5) permits — a friction the consultative process must manage.
+
+### 5.3 Adversary framing
+
+- **Russia.** Frames any allied investigation or escort as provocation; advances a deniability narrative attributing cable and interconnector damage to accident or to a "NATO false flag"; retains a concentrated Northern Fleet and a deniable deep-sea capability on the Kola Peninsula, but is assessed to prefer continued sub-threshold pressure to overt confrontation.
+
+## 6. Ends, Ways, and Means
+
+- **Ends.** Further sabotage of CUI deterred or defeated; attribution developed to a confidence sufficient to support a coordinated NATO political response; CUI restoration enabled and prioritized by military dependency; Norwegian sovereignty and Allied unity reassured; escalation controlled below the Article 5 / armed-conflict threshold.
+- **Ways.** Surveillance and protection of CUI; escort of cable-repair operations; detection, tracking, and shadowing of suspect vessels; ISR and seabed/acoustic forensics in support of attribution; PNT-resilient operations and counter-EW; calibrated deterrent signaling — all integrated with NATO, Norway, and the interagency, and all below armed conflict.
+- **Means.** USEUCOM forces with NAVEUR-6F as supported maritime commander, employed forward through Task Force 65 / CTF-67; Allied contributions through SNMG1, Norway, and the United Kingdom; supporting CCMDs (USSPACECOM for PNT/space domain awareness, USCYBERCOM for attribution support); and interagency partners (DoS, DOJ/FBI, DHS/CISA).
+
+## 7. Strategic Communication Themes
+
+1. **Allied solidarity and Norwegian sovereignty are unconditional.** US action supports Norway as host/lead and the Alliance through the consultative process.
+2. **CUI protection is lawful and defensive.** US and Allied presence upholds freedom of navigation and the protection of civilian and shared infrastructure; it is not escalation.
+3. **Attribution will be deliberate and evidence-based.** The United States will not make public attribution claims ahead of NCA and NATO coordination, and will contest, not amplify, adversary deniability narratives.
+4. **Escalation is the saboteur's choice, not the Alliance's.** Posture is measured and proportionate; further action against allied infrastructure will be attributed and answered, but the Alliance is not seeking conflict.
+5. **Resilience is a shared enterprise.** Protection of undersea cables and interconnectors is a combined civil-military, allied, and interagency responsibility.
+
+## 8. Cross-Reference to the Planning Directive
+
+This strategic context informs, and is operationalized by, the planning-directive chain: CJCS EXORD (`07_CJCS_EXORD.md`) → USEUCOM Linked EXORD (`08_USEUCOM_LINKED_EXORD.md`) → component linked EXORDs (`09a`, `09b`). Commander's intent and operational design are in the CIPG (`12_CIPG.md`); the restated mission, CCIRs, and decision points are carried in `12`, `13`, and `15`.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# Regional Intelligence Summary — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Theater Joint Intelligence Summary (J2)
+**Date Range Covered:** 05 JAN 26 – 13 JAN 26 (with pattern-of-life back to 2024)
+**Source Basis:** OSINT and exercise-injected reporting — consistent with NATO MARCOM CUI Coordination Cell products, Norwegian Intelligence Service (E-tjenesten) liaison reporting, commercial maritime AIS and flight-tracking aggregators, commercial satellite-imagery vendors, cable-operator fault reporting, and academic/think-tank seabed-warfare assessment
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Executive Summary
+
+Between 05 and 13 JAN 26, three subsea telecom/data cables and one HVDC power interconnector in the Norwegian and Barents Seas suffered near-simultaneous damage, coincident with sustained GPS/PNT jamming and AIS spoofing degrading navigation across Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches. A Russian-flagged GUGI-analog hydrographic/survey vessel (GS Pomor) and two shadow-fleet merchants (MV Arktika Star, MV Kola Trader) operated in or near the cable corridors during the window with extended, unexplained AIS gaps.
+
+J2 assesses **with high confidence** that Russia possesses the deniable seabed and deep-submergence capability to conduct the observed damage, resident in the Northern Fleet's Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research (GUGI-analog) on the Kola Peninsula. J2 assesses **with low confidence** the **intent** behind the incidents and holds **low confidence on conclusive attribution** — specifically whether the damage was directed by the Russian state, executed by a deniable proxy or shadow-fleet vessel acting at state behest, or in any individual case the product of an accident (anchor drag, trawl gear) of the kind that genuinely occurs in these waters. This capability-known / intent-and-attribution-uncertain split is the central analytic problem and motivates the collection priorities at §8.
+
+The window closed with GS Ladoga, a second GUGI-analog survey vessel, departing the Kola area on a track toward the Bear Island Gap corridor — an indicator carried forward as a decision-point trigger (`13_CCIRs.md`, `15_Event_Template_NAI_Matrix.xlsx`). Norway has requested Article 4 consultations; STARTEX for US mission analysis is 140600Z JAN 26.
+
+## 2. The Nine-Day Escalation Arc (05–13 JAN 26)
+
+- **05–06 JAN.** Onset of intermittent GPS/PNT degradation and AIS anomalies over Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches, initially assessed as routine Kola-based EW activity within the observed seasonal pattern. GS Pomor departs the Kola area; AIS shows a normal coastal track before the first of several gaps.
+- **07 JAN — Cut Site A.** SVL-2, one of the twin Svalbard Link fibers (Longyearbyen–Harstad), is **severed** near the Svalbard approaches (Cut Site A, vicinity 76.5N 014.0E). Loss of SVL-2 degrades, but does not sever, connectivity from Longyearbyen and the Svalbard Satellite Station; SVL-1 carries the residual load. GS Pomor's AIS shows an extended gap bracketing the fault timeframe in the broader Svalbard approaches.
+- **09 JAN — Cut Site B.** The trans-Atlantic data cable Boreal Connect (Norway–Iceland–North America) registers a **partial fault** in the Norwegian Sea (Cut Site B, vicinity 67.5N 002.0E). The shadow-fleet bulk carrier MV Kola Trader is the nearest tracked commercial vessel to the corridor in the preceding days, with an AIS gap of several hours over the relevant segment.
+- **11 JAN — Nordkapp Data Link.** The coastal fiber along Finnmark (NDL) registers **intermittent faults**, coincident with a renewed and stronger episode of GPS/PNT jamming along the Finnmark coast. The simultaneity complicates fault localization and is itself assessed as a possible masking effect.
+- **12 JAN — Arctic Bridge HVDC.** A segment of the Arctic Bridge HVDC power interconnector in the Norwegian Sea experiences a **protective trip**; operator preliminary assessment is consistent with suspected anchor-drag damage. The crude tanker MV Arktika Star transited the general area with an AIS gap in the preceding 24 hours; an anchor-drag mechanism is consistent with both a deliberate act and a genuine accident, and the two cannot yet be distinguished from the available data.
+- **13 JAN.** GS Pomor recovered to the Kola area. GS Ladoga (second GUGI-analog survey vessel) departs on a northwesterly track assessed as consistent with transit toward the Bear Island Gap corridor. Jamming continues at reduced intensity. Norway requests Article 4 consultations.
+
+## 3. Adversary Strategic Posture
+
+### 3.1 Russian Northern Fleet and the GUGI-analog directorate
+
+The Northern Fleet (HQ Severomorsk; Commander ADM Viktor Sorokin, RuN) maintains the concentration of surface, subsurface, and EW capability on the Kola Peninsula from which all observed activity is most plausibly staged. The Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research (GUGI-analog) provides a deniable seabed and deep-submergence survey capability whose hydrographic vessels (GS Pomor, GS Ladoga) and special-mission host submarine (B-90 Vologda) are assessed capable of locating, surveying, and interfering with seabed infrastructure at the depths involved. See `03_Adversary_OOB.md` for unit detail.
+
+**Capabilities — high confidence.** Russia has the platforms, the seabed knowledge, the EW assets, and the demonstrated doctrine to conduct deniable CUI interference across the Norwegian and Barents Seas.
+
+**Intent — low confidence.** Whether the campaign is intended to (a) coerce Norway and the Alliance through demonstrated reach over critical infrastructure, (b) condition the operating environment for future leverage, or (c) probe Allied response thresholds, is unresolved. The deliberate use of deniable means is itself consistent with an intent to act below the level that would compel a collective-defense response.
+
+### 3.2 Shadow-fleet and deniable maritime activity
+
+MV Arktika Star (crude tanker) and MV Kola Trader (bulk carrier), both flags of convenience, exhibit the dark-activity profile (extended AIS gaps near the corridors, loitering inconsistent with their declared voyages) associated with Russia's shadow fleet. Their proximity to Cut Sites and to the HVDC corridor during the relevant windows is suggestive but, given the genuine density of commercial and fishing traffic and the prevalence of accidental anchor/trawl cable faults, is not by itself conclusive of a deliberate act or of state direction.
+
+### 3.3 EW / PNT jamming from the Kola Peninsula
+
+Northern Fleet EW units on the Kola Peninsula (Tobol- / Murmansk-BN-analog systems) are the assessed source of the GPS/PNT jamming and AIS-spoofing footprint observed over Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches. The jamming pattern correlated in time with the 11 JAN cable faults; J2 cannot yet determine whether the correlation reflects deliberate masking of a seabed act or the independent continuation of a standing EW posture. The footprint affects friendly as well as civil receivers, and degraded PNT is itself a constraint on the maritime and air operations that would conduct protection and forensics.
+
+### 3.4 Subsurface activity and pattern of life
+
+The least-observed element of the picture is the subsurface. The special-mission host submarine B-90 Vologda is assessed capable of deploying and recovering the deep-submergence systems that would localize and interfere with seabed cables; its location during the window is not established from available reporting. Northern Fleet pattern-of-life since 2024 shows a steady normalization of GUGI-analog survey activity along the cable corridors and recurring, seasonally-patterned EW episodes — a baseline against which the January incidents stand out chiefly for their clustering and near-simultaneity rather than for any single anomalous act.
+
+## 4. Regional State and Actor Posture
+
+- **Norway (host/lead).** Owns the affected infrastructure and the surrounding sovereignty equities (Finnmark, Troms, Svalbard); has invoked Article 4 and requested Allied support; the Norwegian Joint Headquarters (FOH, Reitan/Bodø) and E-tjenesten (Vardø ground station) are the principal liaison nodes.
+- **United Kingdom.** Contributing seabed-warfare and surface capability; aligned on the CUI-protection priority.
+- **Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark.** Supportive Allies with exposure along the northern and trans-Atlantic routes; converge on reassurance and attribution but differ on response thresholds.
+- **Commercial stakeholders.** Subsea-cable operators, the HVDC interconnector operator, and a contracted cable-repair ship shape the restoration timeline and the operating picture; they are not adversaries but their schedules and fault data are central to both protection and forensics.
+
+## 5. Civil and Critical-Infrastructure Overlay
+
+The affected cables and interconnector carry far more than civilian internet traffic. SVL and Boreal Connect transport allied/civil space-ground links from the Svalbard Satellite Station and a portion of allied communications and financial-clearing data; the redundancy lost when one of a redundant pair is severed raises the consequence of any further cut. The full dependency picture is developed in `05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md`, `11_Annexes.md`, and the OSINT bundle (`16_OSINT_Bundle.md`). The polar-night environment — near-continuous darkness, sea state 4–6, icing, an intermittent ice edge in the northern Barents — degrades surface, air, and repair operations and narrows the windows in which protection and forensics can occur.
+
+## 6. Information Environment Snapshot
+
+Russian state media and a coordinated inauthentic social-media network are advancing an attribution-denial narrative: that the damage is the result of a "trawler/anchor accident," or alternatively that any allied investigation is a "NATO false flag" pretext for militarizing the High North. The narrative exploits the genuine ambiguity of cable faults in heavily-trafficked waters. Attribution of the influence activity itself is moderate confidence; its effect is to raise the evidentiary bar the Alliance must clear before any public attribution.
+
+## 7. Intelligence Gaps and Confidence Assessment
+
+J2 holds **high confidence on Russian capability** and **low confidence on intent and on conclusive attribution** — the central capabilities-vs-intent split. Principal gaps:
+
+1. **Attribution — direction vs. deniable proxy vs. accident.** No single reporting stream resolves whether the damage was state-directed, executed by a deniable proxy/shadow-fleet vessel, or in any case accidental. Resolution requires fusion of vessel tracks, AIS-gap correlation, EW geolocation, and seabed/acoustic forensics. (Drives PIR-2.)
+2. **Next-target indication.** Whether GS Ladoga is positioning to target the Bear Island Gap corridor, and whether further sabotage is likely within the next 14 days and against which corridor. (Drives PIR-1 / PIR-3 and the decision-point trigger.)
+3. **Subsurface picture.** The location and activity of the special-mission host submarine B-90 Vologda and any deployed seabed payloads — the least-observed and highest-value element of the adversary picture.
+4. **Jamming characterization.** The full extent, pattern, and intent of the GPS/PNT jamming, and its effect on friendly maritime and air operations. (Drives PIR-4 and the PNT/SPACECOM seam.)
+5. **CUI dependency and restoration.** The precise military-communications dependency on each affected cable and the realistic restoration timeline given the cable-repair ship's availability and the weather.
+
+## 8. Implications for the Operational Approach
+
+- The **capability-known / intent-and-attribution-uncertain** problem means the operation must develop attribution as an objective in its own right, not assume it; protection and forensics are mutually reinforcing collection.
+- The **GS Ladoga transit** creates a time-sensitive indication-and-warning problem against the Bear Island Gap corridor that must be wired to a decision and a CCIR.
+- The **deniability of the means** — shadow-fleet vessels, accident-plausible mechanisms, EW masking — is the adversary's principal advantage and the analyst's principal obstacle; nothing in this summary, taken alone, meets the threshold for a confirmed, attributable act.
+- The **jamming** ties the intelligence problem to friendly operability and to a multi-CCMD seam (SPACECOM / the electromagnetic spectrum) that must be deconflicted with friendly maritime and air operations.
+- **Escalation management** is continuous: the same deniability that frustrates attribution also caps the response that competition permits, and the collection-and-signaling approach must deter repetition without crossing the Article 5 / armed-conflict threshold.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/03_Adversary_OOB.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# Adversary Order of Battle — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Adversary Order of Battle (J2)
+**Cutoff:** 140600Z JAN 26
+**Source Basis:** OSINT and exercise-injected reporting; consistent with NATO MARCOM CUI Coordination Cell products, Norwegian Intelligence Service (E-tjenesten) liaison reporting, commercial maritime AIS and flight-tracking aggregators, commercial satellite imagery, and academic/think-tank seabed-warfare assessment. Unit designations, hull numbers, pennant numbers, and personnel are fictionalized.
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+> Calibration note for the reader: this OOB covers the Russian Northern Fleet at large, but the **employed** capability in the SILENT FATHOM window is narrow and deniable — seabed/deep-submergence survey and cable interaction, EW/PNT jamming and AIS spoofing from the Kola Peninsula, shadow-fleet merchant activity, and an information-domain attribution-denial effort. The Northern Fleet's conventional surface, subsurface, and strike capability is real and substantial but is present here as **theater context and posture**, not as the main effort. There is no observed A2/AD employment, no kinetic conventional action, and no nuclear signaling beyond standing rhetoric in the information space.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Strategic Command and Control Architecture
+
+- **Commander, Northern Fleet** — **ADM Viktor Sorokin, RuN**; HQ Severomorsk, Kola Peninsula. Exercises operational command of Northern Fleet surface, subsurface, naval-aviation, and coastal forces, and is the regional authority through which any state-directed maritime activity in the Norwegian and Barents Seas would most plausibly be coordinated.
+- **Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research (GUGI-analog)** — a national-level deep-sea/deep-submergence directorate that is administratively distinct from the Fleet line chain and reports outside it, but operates from and is hosted by Northern Fleet infrastructure on the Kola Peninsula. This separation is itself a deniability mechanism: GUGI-analog assets can operate under hydrographic/research cover with no overt Fleet tasking trail.
+- **Northern Fleet EW grouping (Kola)** — coastal and shore-based electronic-warfare units generating the GPS/PNT and AIS-spoofing footprint over Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches.
+- **Information apparatus** — state media and a coordinated inauthentic social-media network, directed at the political rather than the military level, pushing the attribution-denial narrative.
+
+The C2 picture relevant to this operation is therefore **bifurcated**: an overt Fleet posture (Sorokin's surface/subsurface forces) that is largely in baseline, and a deniable GUGI-analog / EW / shadow-fleet effort that is the actual instrument of the observed activity. No single chain visibly couples the two — which is the adversary's deliberate design and the analyst's central attribution obstacle.
+
+## 2. Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research (GUGI-analog) — Employed Capability
+
+This is the **main effort** of the adversary picture and the capability set most relevant to the cable damage.
+
+| Asset | Type | Base / Op Area | Notes |
+|-------|------|----------------|-------|
+| GS *Pomor* | Hydrographic/survey vessel (Yantar-class analog) | Kola; operated Norwegian/Barents Sea corridors in the window | Surface mothership; carries/launches deep-submergence systems; transited near Cut Site A (Svalbard approaches) with extended AIS gaps; recovered to Kola 13 JAN |
+| GS *Ladoga* | Second hydrographic/survey vessel (GUGI-analog) | Kola; departed 13 JAN on northwesterly track | Assessed transiting toward the **Bear Island Gap corridor** — the time-phased indicator carried as a decision-point trigger (see §9 and `13_CCIRs.md`) |
+| B-90 *Vologda* | Special-mission / deep-submergence host submarine | Kola; subsurface, location not established | Assessed capable of deploying/recovering deep-submergence and seabed-interaction systems at the depths involved; least-observed and highest-value element of the picture |
+
+GUGI-analog assets are assessed **capable of locating, surveying, tapping, and physically interfering with seabed cables and interconnectors** at the depths present across the affected corridors. They routinely operate under hydrographic/oceanographic-research cover, which is legally and practically difficult to distinguish from a deliberate seabed-interaction mission until forensics are available.
+
+## 3. Northern Fleet — Conventional Context (background, not main effort)
+
+| Element | Type | Base / Op Area | Notes |
+|---------|------|----------------|-------|
+| Surface action group | 1–2 major surface combatants + escorts | Kola; Barents Sea exercise areas | Baseline posture; deterrent presence; not assessed as participating in CUI activity |
+| Attack-submarine force | SSN/SSK | Kola; Barents/Norwegian Sea patrol areas | Standing patrol pattern; provides the subsurface backdrop within which B-90 *Vologda*'s movements are concealed |
+| Naval aviation | MPA / ASW / strike aviation | Kola Peninsula airfields | Routine maritime patrol and reconnaissance; ISR cueing potential |
+| Coastal-defense / A2/AD systems | Coastal ASCM, long-range SAM | Kola Peninsula | **Not employed** in this scenario; a threat only in proximity to the Kola coast; relevant as a posture/escalation factor, not a current effect |
+
+The conventional Fleet is held in baseline. Its relevance to SILENT FATHOM is (a) as the cover and host for the deniable effort, and (b) as the latent escalation reservoir that constrains how forcefully the Alliance can respond below the armed-conflict threshold.
+
+## 4. EW / PNT Jamming (Kola Peninsula)
+
+| Element | Type | Location | Notes |
+|---------|------|----------|-------|
+| Coastal EW grouping | Ground-based GNSS jamming (Tobol-analog) | Kola Peninsula | Assessed source of the GPS/PNT degradation over Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches |
+| Coastal EW grouping | Communications/AIS-spoofing EW (Murmansk-BN-analog) | Kola Peninsula | Long-range HF/comms-effect and AIS-spoofing footprint; contributes to the dark-shipping picture |
+
+The jamming correlated in time with the 11 JAN Nordkapp Data Link faults. J2 cannot yet determine whether this reflects **deliberate masking** of a seabed act or the **independent continuation** of a standing seasonal EW posture — both are consistent with the observed pattern. The footprint degrades friendly and civil receivers alike and is therefore simultaneously an adversary capability and a constraint on the friendly force.
+
+## 5. Shadow-Fleet Merchants (deniable maritime layer)
+
+| Vessel | Type | Flag | Notes |
+|--------|------|------|-------|
+| MV *Arktika Star* | Crude tanker | Flag of convenience | Transited vicinity the Arctic Bridge HVDC corridor with an AIS gap in the 24 h before the 12 JAN protective trip; anchor-drag mechanism is consistent with **both** a deliberate act and a genuine accident |
+| MV *Kola Trader* | Bulk carrier | Flag of convenience | Nearest tracked commercial vessel to the Boreal Connect corridor before the 09 JAN partial fault; multi-hour AIS gap over the relevant segment |
+
+Both exhibit the dark-activity profile (extended AIS gaps, loitering inconsistent with declared voyages) associated with Russia's shadow fleet. Their proximity is **suggestive but not conclusive**: the corridors carry genuine commercial and fishing density, and accidental anchor/trawl cable faults occur in these waters at a baseline rate. A flag-of-convenience registry also interposes a third-state flag-jurisdiction layer that complicates both attribution and interdiction authority.
+
+## 6. Information Apparatus
+
+State media and a coordinated inauthentic social-media network advance two mutually-reinforcing lines: that the damage is a routine "trawler/anchor accident," and that any Allied investigation is a "NATO false flag" pretext for militarizing the High North. The effort exploits the genuine ambiguity of cable faults to **raise the evidentiary bar** the Alliance must clear before public attribution. Attribution of the influence activity itself is assessed at moderate confidence; the activity is directed at the political decision space, not at friendly forces.
+
+## 7. Adversary Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (employed set)
+
+- **Seabed survey and cable interaction.** Hydrographic/research-cover survey of cable corridors; deep-submergence localization; physical interaction (cut, abrasion, tap) at depth, optionally via a submarine-hosted system, leaving a signature that mimics anchor/trawl damage.
+- **Anchor-drag mimicry.** Use of merchant anchor-drag — or its appearance — to produce faults that are individually plausible as accidents, defeating single-event attribution.
+- **AIS manipulation.** Coordinated AIS gaps (transponder-off) and AIS spoofing (false position/identity) to obscure presence near corridors and degrade the friendly track picture.
+- **EW masking and degradation.** GPS/PNT jamming timed to, or coincident with, seabed events — degrading friendly localization/forensics while remaining within a standing, seasonally-plausible EW pattern.
+- **Deniable-layer compartmentation.** Routing the act through GUGI-analog and flag-of-convenience merchants so that no overt Fleet tasking links the state to the effect.
+
+## 8. Adversary Center of Gravity (initial)
+
+The adversary's operational center of gravity in this campaign is **deniability itself** — the layered ambiguity (research cover, accident-plausible mechanisms, flag-of-convenience merchants, EW masking, information-domain denial) that lets Russia demonstrate reach over Allied critical undersea infrastructure while denying the Alliance a confirmed, attributable act on which to base a collective response. Critical capabilities flow from the GUGI-analog seabed assets and the Kola EW grouping; critical requirements are research/commercial cover and the genuine baseline rate of accidental faults; the critical vulnerability is the forensic and multi-source fusion picture that, if developed, collapses the deniability and converts a plausible accident into an attributable act. This vulnerability is what the friendly attribution effort is designed to exploit.
+
+## 9. Capabilities vs. Intent (confidence framing)
+
+- **Capability — HIGH confidence.** Russia possesses the platforms (GUGI-analog survey vessels, B-90 *Vologda*), the seabed knowledge, the Kola EW assets, and the demonstrated doctrine to conduct deniable CUI interference and PNT degradation across the Norwegian and Barents Seas. This is not in analytic doubt.
+- **Intent — LOW confidence.** Whether the campaign is intended to coerce Norway and the Alliance, condition the environment for future leverage, or probe response thresholds, is unresolved. The deliberate use of deniable means is itself consistent with an intent to stay below the level that compels collective defense.
+- **Attribution — LOW confidence.** No single reporting stream resolves whether the damage was state-directed, executed by a deniable proxy/shadow-fleet vessel at state behest, or in any individual case genuinely accidental. The capability-known / intent-and-attribution-uncertain split is the central analytic problem and the driver of the collection priorities.
+
+## 10. Key Indicators and Warnings (cross-reference to CCIRs and Event Template)
+
+- GS *Ladoga* track and behavior relative to the Bear Island Gap corridor — the time-phased decision-point indicator.
+- Renewed or repositioned GUGI-analog survey activity along an as-yet-undamaged corridor (next-target indication).
+- B-90 *Vologda* subsurface localization or any deployed seabed payload (highest-value, least-observed).
+- New or intensified GPS/PNT jamming and AIS-spoofing episodes, and their correlation with fault events.
+- Shadow-fleet merchant movements (AIS gaps, loitering) near intact corridors.
+- Shifts in the information-domain narrative timed to Alliance decision points.
+
+Detailed I&W and NAI/DP linkage are in `13_CCIRs.md` and `15_Event_Template_NAI_Matrix.xlsx`.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/04_Coalition_OOB.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+# Coalition Order of Battle — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Friendly / Coalition Order of Battle (J3/J5)
+**Apportionment Date:** 140600Z JAN 26 (per USEUCOM Linked EXORD)
+**Source Basis:** OSINT and exercise-injected reporting. Real organizations (USEUCOM, NAVEUR-6F / US SIXTH Fleet, SOCEUR, CTF-65/CTF-67, SOCEUR, NATO MARCOM, SNMG1, Norwegian Joint Headquarters, E-tjenesten) form the backbone; the UK RFA *Proteus* multi-role ocean-surveillance ship is a real platform carried as-is. Other unit designations, hull/pennant numbers, and personnel are fictionalized for the synthetic frame.
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+> The coalition is **CUI-protection- and attribution-permissive but coercion- and escalation-restrictive**, operating deliberately below the armed-conflict threshold. Allied force contributions are mostly aligned on the protection-and-attribution lines; ROE and response thresholds are aligned-but-not-identical, and partner caveats differ on shadowing, interdiction, and any action that could be characterized as coercive against Russian state vessels.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Command Architecture (summary)
+
+- **Supported CCMD:** USEUCOM (Patch Barracks, Stuttgart) — **GEN Marcus T. Hale, USA**, COMUSEUCOM (dual-hatted as SACEUR; acts here in the **US national** capacity — the NATO chain is distinct and coordinated through separate channels).
+- **Supported maritime component:** Commander, US Naval Forces Europe-Africa / US SIXTH Fleet (NAVEUR-6F, Naples) — **VADM Karen L. Briggs, USN**, designated supported maritime commander.
+- **Maritime task organization:** **Task Force 65** (surface) and **CTF-67** (maritime patrol, NAS Sigonella) employed forward to the High North; **RDML Daniel Crowe, USN**, Commander Task Force 65.
+- **SOF component:** Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR, Stuttgart) — **BG Aaron Pruitt, USA**.
+- **Supporting CCMDs:** USSPACECOM (PNT / space-domain awareness, EMS deconfliction), USCYBERCOM (attribution support), USTRANSCOM (lift), USNORTHCOM (Arctic-approaches seam).
+- **Interagency:** DoS (Embassy Oslo / EUR; **Hon. Patricia Donnelly**, Chief of Mission), DOJ/FBI (attribution; cable as protected infrastructure), DHS/CISA (CUI dependency analysis).
+
+## 2. Coalition / Theater Apportionment (planning basis)
+
+Available to the maritime effort under the USEUCOM Linked EXORD: **up to two surface combatants, one SSN, and maritime-patrol sorties**, plus a dedicated ocean-surveillance ship, employed forward to the High North in support of CUI protection, shadowing, attribution, and reassurance.
+
+| Element | Composition (apportioned) | Intended role |
+|---------|---------------------------|---------------|
+| Surface combatants | Up to **2** — USS *Stockbridge* (DDG-139, Rota-based DESRON 60) and USS *Chesapeake* (FFG-64) | CUI surveillance/protection, cable-repair escort, shadowing, presence/reassurance |
+| Submarine | **1 × SSN** — USS *Cheyenne* (SSN-810) | Subsurface MDA, ISR, seabed-task support |
+| Ocean surveillance | USNS *Cascadia* (T-AGOS-26) | Seabed/acoustic forensics, undersea-surveillance picture |
+| Maritime patrol | P-8A Poseidon det (CTF-67), forward-operating from Evenes, Norway | Wide-area MDA, AIS/track correlation, attribution-indicator collection |
+| High-altitude ISR | RQ-4 / MQ-9 (PNT-degraded environment) | Persistent wide-area ISR; corridor and shadow-fleet monitoring |
+
+## 3. US Forces — Allocated (as forces close)
+
+Allocation as reflected in the component linked EXORD (`09a`) as forces close to the High North:
+
+| Element | Allocated reality |
+|---------|-------------------|
+| Surface combatants | **USS *Stockbridge* (DDG-139)** allocated and employed forward as the surface lead for CUI protection and cable-repair escort. |
+| Submarine | **USS *Cheyenne* (SSN-810)** held to an independent ISR/seabed task under separate tasking; not allocated to the surface escort effort. |
+| Ocean surveillance | **USNS *Cascadia* (T-AGOS-26)** allocated for seabed/acoustic forensics at the cut sites. |
+| Maritime patrol | P-8A det allocated at Evenes; sortie rate weather- and PNT-constrained. |
+| High-altitude ISR | High-altitude ISR allocated subject to PNT-degraded-environment limitations. |
+
+## 4. Coalition Forces — Overt Contributors
+
+| Partner | Forces offered | ROE / caveats | Command relationship |
+|---------|----------------|---------------|----------------------|
+| Norway (host/lead) | HNoMS *Harald Haarfagre* (F-316, Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate); NoCGV *Finnmark* (W341, Coast Guard OPV); 333 Squadron P-8A (Evenes); Norwegian Joint HQ (FOH, Reitan/Bodø) and E-tjenesten (Vardø ground station) | Host-nation lead; Svalbard Treaty posture constraints around the archipelago; national control of coercive/interdiction action; Coast Guard retains sovereign law-enforcement lead in Norwegian waters | National command; coordination via FOH; TACON to combined task elements by mutual agreement |
+| United Kingdom | RFA *Proteus* (Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship — seabed-warfare role); HMS *Kentmere* (Type 23 frigate) | Aligned on CUI protection and attribution; national caveats on shadowing/interdiction of Russian state vessels; **no coercive action absent clear legal basis** | National control; liaison; coordination through NATO MARCOM CUI Cell |
+| NATO (standing) | Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1) | Alliance ROE; **Article 4 consultative track only — Article 5 not invoked**; sub-threshold posture | NATO chain (distinct from the US national chain); coordination seam |
+
+## 5. Coalition Forces — Quiet / Implicit Support
+
+- **Finland and Sweden (NATO members)** providing maritime-domain-awareness cooperation, basing/overflight goodwill, and northern-route monitoring short of overt force contribution; converge on reassurance and attribution but differ on response thresholds.
+- **Iceland and Denmark** providing trans-Atlantic-route awareness and diplomatic alignment.
+- **Five Eyes and Allied intelligence-sharing partners** supporting the attribution picture without overt force presence.
+
+## 6. Non-Force Resources
+
+- **Contracted cable-repair ship** — commercial vessel under contract to the cable operators; sets the restoration timeline and is the protected unit for the escort task at Cut Site B (Boreal Connect). Schedule and on-station windows are weather-dependent.
+- **Commercial cable operators and the HVDC interconnector operator** — own the fault data and restoration prioritization; central to both protection and forensics; not under military control.
+- **NATO MARCOM Critical Undersea Infrastructure (CUI) Coordination Cell, Northwood** — the Alliance node coordinating the CUI-protection picture across national and NATO contributions; the principal coordination interface between the US national effort, SNMG1, and Allied national forces. The Cell synchronizes surveillance and de-conflicts the multinational protection effort but does not exercise command over national forces.
+
+## 7. Coalition Caveats and ROE Alignment
+
+The coalition converges on **CUI surveillance and protection, cable-repair escort, shadowing/tracking, and attribution development**. It diverges on the **coercive end of the spectrum**: no partner has agreed in advance to interdict, board, or divert vessels in international waters absent a positive legal determination, and several retain explicit national caveats against any action characterizable as coercive against Russian state vessels. The Svalbard Treaty regime constrains posture around the archipelago for all contributors. Partner contributions are therefore most usable on the protection/forensics/escort lines and least usable on any interdiction or deterrent-signaling line that approaches the threshold — a constraint the J5 must plan around (see `12_CIPG.md` and `11_Annexes.md` Annex A, OPLAW).
+
+## 8. Requests for Forces (RFF) in Process
+
+- Additional ocean-surveillance / seabed-survey capacity to extend forensics across multiple cut sites simultaneously.
+- Additional MPA/ISR to sustain wide-area coverage in a weather- and PNT-degraded environment.
+- Counter-EW / alternate-PNT enablers for the maritime force (coordinated with SPACECOM).
+- Surge surface presence to cover both the cable-repair escort and the Bear Island Gap shadowing tasks concurrently.
+
+## 9. Command Relationships (text diagram)
+
+```
+                 SecDef
+                   |
+        COMUSEUCOM GEN Hale (supported; US national capacity)  ── coord ── DoS (Embassy Oslo) / DOJ-FBI / DHS-CISA
+                   |                                                ‖ (distinct NATO chain via SACEUR/NAC — Article 4 track)
+        ┌──────────┼────────────────┐
+   NAVEUR-6F (VADM Briggs;        SOCEUR (BG Pruitt)         Supporting CCMDs:
+   supported maritime lead)                                  USSPACECOM (PNT/SDA, EMS)
+        |                                                    USCYBERCOM (attribution)
+   CTF-65 (surface; RDML Crowe) / CTF-67 (MPA, Sigonella)    USTRANSCOM (lift)
+        |                                                    USNORTHCOM (Arctic-approaches seam)
+   DDG / FFG · SSN · T-AGOS · P-8A det (Evenes) · HA-ISR
+
+   Coordination (not command): NATO MARCOM CUI Coordination Cell (Northwood) ──
+   ── SNMG1 · Norway (FOH/E-tjenesten) · UK (RFA Proteus / HMS Kentmere) · cable operators / repair ship
+```
+
+Detailed component task organization is in `09a_NAVEUR6F_Component_LINKED_EXORD.md` (maritime) and `09b_SOCEUR_Component_LINKED_EXORD.md` (SOF). Legal/OPLAW lanes (UNCLOS interdiction authority, Svalbard Treaty posture) are in `11_Annexes.md` Annex A.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# Country Fact Sheet — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Country / Actor Reference Compilation
+**Scope:** Kingdom of Norway (host/lead), the Svalbard archipelago and Treaty regime, selected NATO Allies; critical undersea infrastructure of the Norwegian and Barents Seas
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+> Geography, government, and infrastructure entries use real-world Norway and Svalbard at OSINT level. Specific cable systems, the HVDC interconnector, hull numbers, units, and personnel are fictionalized for the synthetic frame. Reconcile all entities to the facts ledger.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Kingdom of Norway (NOR)
+
+### 1.1 Government and political dynamics
+- **Form:** Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy; unicameral Storting. Sovereign as head of state; Prime Minister as head of government.
+- **Population / geography:** ~5.5M. Long, deeply indented Atlantic coastline; the northern counties **Troms** and **Finnmark** front the Norwegian and Barents Seas and share a land border with Russia at the Pasvik valley near **Kirkenes**. The mainland reaches above 71°N at the North Cape (Nordkapp); national territory extends to the **Svalbard** archipelago (§2) and Jan Mayen.
+- **Strategic posture:** Founding NATO member; self-defined as the Alliance's "eyes and ears in the North." Long-standing policy of reassurance toward, and firmness with, Russia along the shared northern frontier. Host of recurring Allied High-North exercises.
+
+### 1.2 Armed forces (Forsvaret) and command
+- **Norwegian Armed Forces (Forsvaret):** ~25,000 active plus conscripts and the Home Guard (Heimevernet); conscription applies to men and women. Modest in mass, technologically capable, optimized for High-North surveillance, anti-submarine warfare, and Allied reception.
+- **Norwegian Joint Headquarters (Forsvarets operative hovedkvarter, FOH):** at **Reitan**, near **Bodø** (67.28N, 14.40E) — the national operational-level headquarters and the principal Norwegian C2 and liaison node for this operation.
+- **Navy (Sjøforsvaret):** Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates (incl. **HNoMS Harald Haarfagre, F-316**), submarines, and the **Coast Guard (Kystvakten)** operating offshore patrol vessels such as **NoCGV Finnmark (W341)** across the EEZ and fisheries-protection zones.
+- **Air Force (Luftforsvaret):** F-35A fighters and the **P-8A Poseidon** maritime-patrol fleet of **333 Squadron**, principally at **Evenes** (68.49N, 16.68E), Norway's northern QRA and MPA hub.
+
+### 1.3 Norwegian Intelligence Service (E-tjenesten)
+The **Etterretningstjenesten** is Norway's foreign-intelligence service, with a recognized specialization in monitoring Russian Northern Fleet activity and the electromagnetic environment of the High North. It operates the **Vardø** ground station (70.37N, 31.11E) on the Barents coast, a key collection node for space, missile-warning, and maritime surveillance. E-tjenesten liaison reporting is a primary source for the theater intelligence picture.
+
+### 1.4 Key bases and nodes (north)
+- **Evenes (68.49N, 16.68E):** F-35 QRA and P-8A MPA main operating base; the planned forward-operating site for the US **P-8A det (CTF-67)**.
+- **Tromsø (69.65N, 18.96E):** Major northern port and logistics hub; submarine and Allied port-visit facilities.
+- **Vardø (70.37N, 31.11E):** E-tjenesten ground station; easternmost Norwegian town, near the Russian border.
+- **Kirkenes (69.73N, 30.05E):** Border port in eastern Finnmark, ~15 km from Russia; civilian harbor of strategic note given its proximity to the Kola Peninsula.
+- **Bodø / Reitan (67.28N, 14.40E):** FOH; main northern air station.
+
+### 1.5 Economy
+- High-income, energy-anchored economy. **Petroleum:** Norway is a leading European supplier of oil and, since 2022, the dominant pipeline-**gas** supplier to the continent; offshore fields and trunklines run the length of the Norwegian Sea shelf.
+- **Power exports:** Norway is a large net exporter of **hydroelectric power** via **HVDC subsea interconnectors** to the UK and continental Europe; additional High-North interconnection (incl. the **Arctic Bridge HVDC** segment, §3) ties northern generation and grids into the European market.
+- **Maritime sector:** A major flag/shipping, fisheries, and offshore-services state; the Barents and Norwegian Seas are among the world's richest fishing grounds — a relevant factor in the density of civilian traffic across the cable corridors.
+
+### 1.6 Alignment posture
+NATO founding member; closely integrated with US and UK forces under the **US–Norway Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA, 2021)**, which provides agreed-areas access and basing. Host/lead for this operation; has requested Allied support and invoked NATO **Article 4** consultations (Article 5 not invoked).
+
+---
+
+## 2. Svalbard Archipelago and the Svalbard Treaty Regime
+
+### 2.1 Sovereignty and the Treaty
+- **Svalbard** (administrative center **Longyearbyen**, 78.22N, 15.65E) is a high-Arctic archipelago under full **Norwegian sovereignty** by the **Svalbard Treaty (Spitsbergen Treaty, 1920)**.
+- The Treaty grants signatory nationals equal rights of access and economic activity (fishing, mining, research) and obliges Norway not to establish or permit the use of the archipelago for **"warlike purposes."** The precise reach of this **demilitarization clause** — what military or military-adjacent activity it permits in and around Svalbard — is contested between Norway and Russia and is a genuine legal seam constraining force posture in the area.
+- Russia maintains a long-standing presence at **Barentsburg** and **Pyramiden** under the Treaty's equal-access provisions, giving it a lawful foothold in the archipelago.
+
+### 2.2 Svalbard Satellite Station (SvalSat) and connectivity
+- **SvalSat**, on the Platåberget plateau above Longyearbyen, is one of the world's most important polar ground stations: its 78°N latitude lets it command nearly every pass of polar-orbiting satellites, making it a critical node for **civil, scientific, and allied space-ground links** (Earth-observation, weather, and satellite command-and-control downlink/uplink).
+- SvalSat's value depends on the data pipe back to the mainland. That pipe is the **Svalbard Link (SVL)** twin-fiber pair (§3). Loss of redundancy on the SVL therefore degrades not only Svalbard's civilian connectivity but the throughput of the satellite ground-station traffic it carries.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Critical Undersea Infrastructure (Norwegian and Barents Seas)
+
+Four seabed systems define the critical-infrastructure picture. As is typical of modern subsea cables, the telecom systems are shared-carriage: alongside civilian internet and data they transport managed capacity for institutional customers.
+
+- **Svalbard Link — SVL-1 / SVL-2.** A **twin-pair** fiber system connecting **Longyearbyen** to the mainland landing at **Harstad** (68.80N, 16.54E). SVL carries Svalbard and SvalSat connectivity — civil internet and the satellite ground-station data noted at §2.2 — and, as managed transport on the same pair, a portion of **allied military-communications** traffic and **financial-clearing / settlement** data routed northbound. The pair is engineered for mutual redundancy: each fiber can carry the residual load if the other faults. **SVL-2 was severed 07 JAN** (Cut Site A, vicinity 76.5N 014.0E, in the Svalbard approaches); **SVL-1 now carries degraded but not fully severed** Svalbard/SvalSat connectivity, the redundancy gone.
+- **Boreal Connect.** A **trans-Atlantic** data cable transiting the **Norwegian Sea** on the **Norway–Iceland–North America** route. Like SVL, Boreal Connect carries civilian internet and data plus managed allied military-communications transport and a share of **financial-clearing** traffic between European and North American nodes. It registered a **partial fault 09 JAN** (Cut Site B, vicinity 67.5N 002.0E).
+- **Nordkapp Data Link (NDL).** Coastal fiber running along the **Finnmark** coast, serving northern Norwegian communities and connecting onward to the broader national network. It registered **intermittent faults 11 JAN**, coincident with a stronger episode of GPS/PNT jamming along the coast.
+- **Arctic Bridge HVDC.** A high-voltage direct-current **power interconnector** segment in the **Norwegian Sea**, tying northern generation and grids into the wider European market (§1.5). It experienced a **protective trip 12 JAN**, with the operator's preliminary assessment consistent with **suspected anchor-drag damage**.
+
+The systems are mutually independent in routing but concentrate in the same corridors and chokepoints (see `06_Critical_Geography.md`). The loss of redundancy across the telecom pair, and the breadth of traffic each cable carries, mean the consequence of any further cut rises sharply.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Allies and Partner States (selected)
+
+### 4.1 United Kingdom
+Closest maritime partner in the High North; contributing seabed-warfare capability (the Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship **RFA Proteus**) and a surface escort (Type 23 **HMS Kentmere**). Hosts the **NATO MARCOM Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell** at **Northwood**.
+
+### 4.2 Finland (NATO member)
+Newly relevant Nordic Ally with a long Russian land border; exposure along the northern routes and to the same EW/PNT environment over Finnmark. Converges on reassurance and attribution.
+
+### 4.3 Sweden (NATO member)
+Most recent Nordic accession; Baltic- and High-North-facing capabilities; aligned on CUI protection. Finland and Sweden's accession closes the Nordic NATO arc but the Allies differ on thresholds for publicly naming Russia.
+
+### 4.4 Iceland
+NATO member without standing armed forces; pivotal for the **GIUK / GIUK–Bear Gap** geography and host of the Keflavík air station used for Allied MPA operations. Directly exposed to any disruption of the trans-Atlantic Boreal Connect route.
+
+### 4.5 Denmark
+NATO member with Greenland/Faroe equities astride the GIUK gap and the trans-Atlantic approaches; supportive of reassurance and attribution lines.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Critical-Infrastructure Interdependency Summary
+
+The crisis turns on a small set of seabed nodes whose carriage extends well beyond civilian internet. The **SVL** pair and **Boreal Connect** are the highest-consequence systems: each transports, alongside public traffic, managed **allied military-communications** capacity and **financial-clearing/settlement** data, and SVL additionally carries the **SvalSat** satellite ground-station links. The **07 JAN** severing of SVL-2 removed the redundancy on the Svalbard pair, so that **SVL-1** alone now sustains a degraded northern connection; a second cut on that route, or on Boreal Connect, would convert a degraded picture into an outage with second-order effects on allied communications transport, settlement data, and polar satellite operations. The **NDL** governs Finnmark coastal connectivity and the **Arctic Bridge HVDC** ties northern power into the European grid. These dependencies, and the corridors and chokepoints that concentrate them, are developed in `06_Critical_Geography.md`, `11_Annexes.md`, and the OSINT bundle (`16_OSINT_Bundle.md`), and are keyed to the NAIs/TAIs/DPs in `15_Event_Template_NAI_Matrix.xlsx`.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/06_Critical_Geography.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Critical Geography — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Theater Geography & Environment Reference
+**Scope:** Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea; cable corridors and landing sites; chokepoints, ports, and bases; maritime-jurisdiction geography; polar-night climatology
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Theater Overview
+
+The operating area spans the **Norwegian Sea** (centroid ~68.0N, 5.0E) and the **Barents Sea** (centroid ~73.0N, 35.0E), roughly 66°–79°N, from the Greenland–Iceland–UK line in the southwest to the Kola Peninsula and the Svalbard approaches in the northeast. The geography is defined by depth and distance: deep Norwegian Sea basins in the southwest give way to the shallower Barents shelf in the northeast, and the affected infrastructure runs along the seabed across both. Key reference distances (approximate great-circle):
+
+- Harstad (SVL landing) → Longyearbyen, Svalbard: ~470 nm (N; the SVL twin-pair route)
+- Bodø/Reitan (FOH) → Bear Island Gap corridor: ~370 nm (N/NNE)
+- Tromsø → Svalbard approaches (Cut Site A, ~76.5N 014.0E): ~430 nm (N)
+- Evenes (P-8 base) → Cut Site B (Boreal Connect, ~67.5N 002.0E): ~280 nm (SW)
+- Kirkenes → Severomorsk (RuN Northern Fleet HQ): ~115 nm (E) — Russian fleet bastion proximity
+- Bear Island (Bjørnøya) → Svalbard: ~120 nm (N); Bear Island → North Cape: ~210 nm (S)
+
+The corridors thread between Norwegian waters and the high seas, and pass within reach of Russian forces staged on the Kola Peninsula — the single most consequential geographic fact for both threat and jurisdiction.
+
+## 2. Cable Corridors and Landing Sites
+
+- **Svalbard Link (SVL-1/SVL-2):** Twin-pair fiber from the mainland landing at **Harstad** (68.80N, 16.54E) northbound through the Norwegian Sea and across the **Svalbard approaches** to **Longyearbyen**. The northern end of the route — the Svalbard approaches near **Cut Site A (~76.5N 014.0E)** — runs through deep water beyond the Norwegian territorial sea. SVL-2 was severed here 07 JAN; SVL-1 carries the residual load.
+- **Boreal Connect:** Trans-Atlantic data cable routed across the **Norwegian Sea** on the Norway–Iceland–North America line, transiting deep basins toward the GIUK–Bear Gap. Its partial fault, **Cut Site B (~67.5N 002.0E)**, lies in the open Norwegian Sea well seaward of the coast.
+- **Nordkapp Data Link (NDL):** A **coastal** fiber following the Finnmark littoral past the North Cape (Nordkapp), largely within or near the Norwegian territorial sea — the one affected system that runs predominantly inside sovereign waters.
+- **Arctic Bridge HVDC:** A power-interconnector **segment in the Norwegian Sea**, crossing the same general corridor as the data cables and exposed to the same chokepoint and seabed conditions.
+
+These corridors are cross-referenced to NAIs, TAIs, and the cut-site geometry in `15_Event_Template_NAI_Matrix.xlsx`.
+
+## 3. Chokepoints and Approaches
+
+- **GIUK–Bear Gap (~72.0N, 10.0E):** The maritime gateway between the North Atlantic and the Norwegian/Barents Seas — the classic Greenland–Iceland–UK barrier extended northeast toward Bear Island. All trans-Atlantic and Norwegian Sea cable routing, and any Northern Fleet movement to the open Atlantic, funnels through this band.
+- **Bear Island / Bjørnøya Gap corridor (~74.0N, 18.0E):** The passage between the North Cape and Bear Island, narrowing the approaches between the mainland coast and Svalbard. It is the assessed transit corridor toward the cable routes and the named area of interest tied to the **GS Ladoga** decision point (`13_CCIRs.md`, `15_Event_Template_NAI_Matrix.xlsx`).
+- **Svalbard approaches (~76°–78°N):** The deep-water northern approaches to the archipelago, encompassing Cut Site A; remote, ice-influenced, and far from any friendly port — the most demanding area to surveil, escort, or conduct forensics.
+
+## 4. Key Ports and Bases
+
+- **Tromsø (69.65N, 18.96E):** Principal northern port and logistics hub; Allied port-visit and submarine support; the practical staging point for surface operations into the Barents.
+- **Kirkenes (69.73N, 30.05E):** Easternmost border port, ~15 km from Russia and ~115 nm from Severomorsk; civilian harbor of high sensitivity given its proximity to the Kola bastion.
+- **Bodø / Reitan (67.28N, 14.40E):** Norwegian Joint Headquarters (FOH) and northern air station; the C2 hub for the operation.
+- **Evenes (68.49N, 16.68E):** F-35 QRA and P-8A MPA base; the forward-operating site for the US P-8A det — the closest fixed-wing ISR node to the cable corridors.
+
+## 5. Maritime-Jurisdiction Geography
+
+The legal geography over the corridors is uneven, and enforcement authority tracks it directly:
+
+- **Norwegian territorial sea (to 12 nm):** Full Norwegian sovereignty. The **NDL** coastal route lies largely here; this is the only corridor where the host nation holds clear enforcement authority over activity above and on the seabed.
+- **Norwegian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, 12–200 nm) and fisheries-protection zones (incl. around Svalbard):** Norway holds sovereign rights over resources and jurisdiction over installations, but enforcement against a foreign-flagged vessel damaging a submarine cable is constrained; under the UNCLOS submarine-cable regime, jurisdiction over such acts rests substantially with the **flag state**, not the coastal state.
+- **High seas (beyond 200 nm and over the deep Norwegian Sea routes):** **Cut Site B** (Boreal Connect) and much of the SVL and Boreal Connect routing lie in or near international waters, where coastal-state enforcement authority is at its weakest and flag-state jurisdiction governs.
+
+The practical consequence is that the two highest-consequence cuts (Cut Site A in the Svalbard approaches; Cut Site B in the open Norwegian Sea) sit where enforcement authority against a foreign-flagged actor is most limited — the binding constraint over much of the corridor is legal/jurisdictional rather than physical reach. Proximity to **Russian territorial waters off the Kola Peninsula** further compresses the maneuver space in the eastern Barents, where operating close to the cut geometry also means operating close to the Russian fleet bastion. The OPLAW treatment of cable jurisdiction, the EEZ regime, and the Svalbard demilitarization nuance is in `11_Annexes.md` Annex A.
+
+## 6. Climatology — Polar Night (mid-January)
+
+- **Light:** Above the Arctic Circle the area is in **polar night** — near-continuous darkness through mid-January, with only brief, dim civil twilight near local noon in the southern Norwegian Sea and none at the Svalbard latitudes. Operations are effectively round-the-clock night.
+- **Sea state and weather:** Frequent North Atlantic / Barents storm tracks drive **sea state 4–6** across the open corridors, with higher states in passing systems; usable **weather windows are narrow** and short-fused.
+- **Icing and ice edge:** **Superstructure and rotor icing** is a persistent hazard for surface ships and helicopters; the **northern Barents ice edge** advances and shifts through the season, constraining access to the Svalbard approaches and complicating any operation north and east of Bear Island.
+- **Temperature/visibility:** Sub-zero air and sea-spray, reduced visibility in snow showers and sea smoke.
+
+## 7. Operational Effects of the Environment
+
+- **Surface operations:** SS 4–6 and icing reduce small-boat, davit, and flight-deck availability and slow the cable-repair ship, lengthening restoration timelines and the windows in which escort and protection must be sustained.
+- **Air/ISR operations:** Icing, low ceilings, and darkness constrain MPA and helicopter sorties and degrade some EO/IR collection; high-altitude ISR is less weather-limited but must contend with the PNT environment.
+- **Undersea/seabed forensics:** Surface sea state limits the launch, tow, and recovery of seabed-survey and acoustic systems (T-AGOS / ROV operations), narrowing the forensics windows at Cut Sites A and B.
+- **PNT-degraded navigation:** The polar-night, high-latitude environment already stresses navigation (poor celestial reference, high-latitude compass error); layered onto the **GPS/PNT jamming and AIS spoofing** over Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches, this makes precise station-keeping over a cut site, corridor patrol, and de-confliction of friendly surface and air tracks materially harder, and elevates the value of alternate-navigation and counter-EW measures. The EMS and PNT picture, and the SPACECOM coordination seam, are developed in `11_Annexes.md` (Cyber/EW and Climatology annexes) and the running estimates (`14_Running_Estimates.md`).
+
+## 8. Cross-References
+
+Cable corridors, chokepoints, the Bear Island Gap NAI, cut-site geometry, and the associated decision points are keyed to `15_Event_Template_NAI_Matrix.xlsx`. The CUI carriage and dependency picture is in `05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md`. Maritime legal geography (UNCLOS cable regime, EEZ, Svalbard Treaty nuance) is in `11_Annexes.md` Annex A (OPLAW); climatology and astronomical detail are in the Climatology annex.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/07_CJCS_EXORD.md

@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
+# CJCS EXECUTE ORDER — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Execute Order (MTF format)
+**Source-Document Layer:** National-Level / Joint Staff Planning and Execution Directive
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+---
+
+## CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF EXECUTE ORDER
+
+**DTG:** 140100Z JAN 26
+**PRECEDENCE:** IMMEDIATE
+
+**FROM:** CJCS WASHINGTON DC // JOINT STAFF J3
+
+**TO:**
+
+```
+CDR USEUCOM STUTTGART GE
+```
+
+**INFO:**
+
+```
+WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM WASHINGTON DC
+NSC WASHINGTON DC
+NMCC WASHINGTON DC
+SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
+DEPSECDEF WASHINGTON DC
+USD(P) WASHINGTON DC
+ASD(ISA) WASHINGTON DC
+ASD(SO/LIC) WASHINGTON DC
+SECSTATE WASHINGTON DC
+EUR STATE WASHINGTON DC
+DNI WASHINGTON DC
+DIA WASHINGTON DC
+NSA FORT MEADE MD
+SECHS WASHINGTON DC
+CISA WASHINGTON DC
+FBI WASHINGTON DC
+CNO WASHINGTON DC
+CSAF WASHINGTON DC
+CSA WASHINGTON DC
+CDR USSPACECOM PETERSON SFB CO
+CDR USCYBERCOM FORT MEADE MD
+CDR USTRANSCOM SCOTT AFB IL
+CDR USNORTHCOM PETERSON SFB CO
+JOINT STAFF J2 WASHINGTON DC
+JOINT STAFF J5 WASHINGTON DC
+USEMBASSY OSLO NO
+USNMR SHAPE MONS BE
+```
+
+---
+
+## SUBJECT: CJCS EXECUTE ORDER SER 014-26 — OPERATION SILENT FATHOM
+
+### REFERENCES
+
+- (a) 10 U.S.C. § 164 (Combatant commander command authority)
+- (b) 10 U.S.C. § 162; standing Title 10 authorities for forward presence and support to allies and partners
+- (c) North Atlantic (Washington) Treaty, 4 April 1949 — Article 4 (consultation)
+- (d) US–Norway Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA), 16 April 2021 (access, basing, and overflight)
+- (e) UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Articles 58, 87, 112–115 (submarine cables; high seas and EEZ freedoms; flag-state jurisdiction)
+- (f) Svalbard (Spitsbergen) Treaty, 9 February 1920 (Norwegian sovereignty; demilitarization regime)
+- (g) Joint Publication 5-0 (Joint Planning); CJCSM 3130.02 (linked-order chain)
+- (h) Joint Publication 3-0 (Joint Operations); JP 3-32 (Joint Maritime Operations)
+- (i) CJCSI 3121.01B (Standing Rules of Engagement / Standing Rules for the Use of Force for US Forces)
+- (j) GEF 2026 / JSCP — USEUCOM campaign and crisis-response planning guidance
+- (k) Kingdom of Norway request for Allied support, transmitted via Embassy Oslo, 13 JAN 26
+
+---
+
+### 1. SITUATION
+
+#### (a) General
+
+Between 05 and 13 January 2026, three subsea telecommunications/data cables — the twin Svalbard Link (SVL-1/SVL-2, Longyearbyen–Harstad), the trans-Atlantic Boreal Connect (Norway–Iceland–North America), and the coastal Nordkapp Data Link — and one segment of the Arctic Bridge high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) power interconnector were damaged in near-simultaneous incidents across the Norwegian and Barents Seas. The damage was coincident with sustained GPS/PNT jamming and AIS spoofing that degraded navigation across Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches. A Russian-flagged hydrographic/survey vessel (GS Pomor) and two shadow-fleet merchants (MV Arktika Star, MV Kola Trader) operated in or near the affected cable corridors during the window, each with extended, unexplained AIS gaps. Damage to this critical undersea infrastructure (CUI) degraded — but did not sever — connectivity that includes allied space-ground, communications-transport, and financial-clearing data dependent on the affected routes. Attribution is plausible but not conclusive.
+
+On 13 January, the Kingdom of Norway requested Allied support and requested consultations under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty (reference (c)). Article 5 has not been invoked. The North Atlantic Council has convened Article 4 consultations; the United States supports those consultations through the Department of State and the US National Military Representative at SHAPE.
+
+The President and the Secretary of Defense have directed USEUCOM to conduct mission analysis and develop options to protect critical undersea infrastructure, deter further sabotage, and enable attribution of the incidents — explicitly below the threshold of armed conflict.
+
+#### (b) Enemy
+
+The Russian Federation, through the Northern Fleet (HQ Severomorsk, Kola Peninsula) and its deniable deep-sea survey capability (Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research, GUGI-analog), possesses the platforms, seabed knowledge, EW assets, and demonstrated method to conduct deniable interference with seabed infrastructure across the operating area. Russian Northern Fleet EW units on the Kola Peninsula are the assessed source of the GPS/PNT jamming and AIS-spoofing footprint. Russian state media and a coordinated inauthentic network are advancing an attribution-denial narrative ("trawler/anchor accident," "NATO false flag"). Adversary **capability is assessed with high confidence; intent and conclusive attribution are assessed with low confidence** — the deliberate use of deniable means is itself consistent with an intent to act below the collective-defense threshold. See USEUCOM J2 products (`02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md`, `03_Adversary_OOB.md`).
+
+#### (c) Friendly
+
+USEUCOM is the supported combatant command. The Department of State leads US diplomacy and supports the NAC Article 4 process; Embassy Oslo (Chief of Mission, Hon. Patricia Donnelly) is the in-country focal point. The DOJ/FBI lead the US attribution and protected-infrastructure investigation; DHS/CISA lead CUI dependency analysis. USSPACECOM, USCYBERCOM, and USTRANSCOM are supporting combatant commands. NATO acts through the North Atlantic Council, NATO MARCOM's Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell (Northwood), and Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1); the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Norway contribute maritime and seabed-surveillance capability. COMUSEUCOM is dual-hatted as SACEUR; this order directs the US national chain only and does not direct or imply action in the NATO chain.
+
+#### (d) Civil Considerations
+
+The affected CUI carries allied and civil space-ground links from the Svalbard Satellite Station and a portion of allied communications-transport and financial-clearing data; the loss of redundancy when one cable of a redundant pair is damaged raises the consequence of any further cut. Commercial cable operators, the HVDC interconnector operator, and a contracted cable-repair ship govern the restoration timeline and are central, non-force stakeholders. The polar-night environment — near-continuous darkness, sea state 4–6, icing, and an intermittent ice edge in the northern Barents — constrains surface, air, and repair operations.
+
+#### (e) Assumptions
+
+- The Kingdom of Norway will continue to request and consent to US and Allied support as host/lead.
+- Russia will continue to prefer deniable, sub-threshold pressure to overt confrontation, and will posture to exploit attribution ambiguity in the information environment.
+- Conclusive, releasable attribution will require fusion of vessel-track, EW-geolocation, and seabed/acoustic-forensic reporting and will not be available at the outset.
+- Allies converge on the need to deter and to develop attribution but differ on the evidentiary threshold for public attribution and on the level of response that competition permits.
+- Access, basing, and overflight in Norway are available under reference (d).
+
+### 2. MISSION
+
+When directed, USEUCOM, in coordination with NATO Allies and the Kingdom of Norway, conducts mission analysis and develops options to protect critical undersea infrastructure, deter further sabotage of subsea infrastructure, and enable attribution of the incidents in the Norwegian and Barents Seas, below the threshold of armed conflict, in order to restore the security of critical undersea infrastructure, preserve freedom of navigation, and reassure Allies.
+
+### 3. EXECUTION
+
+#### (a) National-Level Commander's Intent
+
+Protect the critical undersea infrastructure on which Allied security depends, deter the next act of sabotage, and build the attribution picture that enables a coordinated Alliance political response — without handing Moscow the escalation it would exploit. The military instrument supports a State-led, NATO-framed effort: visible, lawful presence; surveillance and protection; and disciplined collection. Develop a deny–attribute–signal option set that deters repetition while remaining demonstrably below the armed-conflict threshold and consistent with the law of the sea. Reassure Norway and the exposed Allies; preserve Allied unity and escalation control throughout.
+
+#### (b) Concept (national direction)
+
+- **Phase 0 (Shape) — ongoing:** ISR, presence, interagency and Allied coordination; support to the NAC Article 4 consultations.
+- **Phase I (Set / Deter):** flow the apportioned maritime and ISR force forward; establish a subsurface-inclusive maritime domain-awareness picture; integrate with the NATO MARCOM CUI Cell and the Norwegian Joint Headquarters; establish PNT-resilient operations with USSPACECOM.
+- **Phase II (Protect / Attribute):** surveil and protect CUI; escort cable-repair operations; detect, track, and shadow suspect vessels; conduct seabed/acoustic forensics in support of attribution; develop deterrent-signaling options for decision.
+- **Phase III (Transition):** as restoration and attribution mature, transition CUI-resilience and forensic lines to civil, Allied, and interagency leads; preserve a residual deterrent posture as directed.
+
+#### (c) Authorities Granted
+
+- CDR USEUCOM is delegated authority for crisis-response planning and execution within this order, references (a)–(k), and the SROE/SRUF at reference (i).
+- US role and access derive from (i) the Kingdom of Norway's request for Allied support (reference (k)); (ii) US Title 10 support-to-ally and forward-presence authorities (reference (b)); and (iii) the US–Norway SDCA (reference (d)). No new self-defense trigger is invoked.
+- USEUCOM is authorized to coordinate directly with USSPACECOM, USCYBERCOM, and USTRANSCOM for supporting effects and with the Department of State, DOJ/FBI, and DHS/CISA for the attribution and CUI-dependency lines.
+
+#### (d) National-Level Restraints and Constraints
+
+The following are directed and are not waivable below the National Command Authority:
+
+- Operate below the threshold of armed conflict at all times.
+- **Do not invoke or imply NATO Article 5.** US action supports the Article 4 consultative process and Norway as host/lead; this order directs the US national chain only.
+- **No kinetic action against Russian state vessels.** Interaction with suspect or Russian state vessels is limited to lawful detection, tracking, shadowing, and presence.
+- **No entry into Russian territorial waters.**
+- **No boarding or seizure of any vessel in international waters absent a positive legal determination and a separate grant of authority.** Cable damage in the high seas and the Norwegian EEZ sits under flag-state jurisdiction and the limited enforcement regime of reference (e); the binding constraint is legal-jurisdictional.
+- Comply with UNCLOS (reference (e)) and the Svalbard Treaty regime (reference (f)), including the demilitarization nuance constraining posture around the archipelago.
+- **No public attribution release without National Command Authority and NATO coordination.** Contest, do not amplify, adversary deniability narratives.
+- **RETAINED AT THE NCA:** approval of any deterrent action with offensive cyber effect; any use of force beyond unit self-defense; and any change to the posture or restraints above. CDR USEUCOM is the senior military planning authority and may plan, posture, and rehearse within the restraints of this order.
+
+#### (e) Tasks
+
+**Supported Command**
+
+- **CDR USEUCOM:** Execute Operation SILENT FATHOM mission analysis. Publish the USEUCOM Linked EXORD NLT 140600Z JAN 26 and direct component orders. Designate the maritime component supported. Integrate the Department of State (Embassy Oslo / EUR), DOJ/FBI (attribution), DHS/CISA (CUI dependency), the NATO MARCOM CUI Cell, and the Norwegian Joint Headquarters. Develop the deny–attribute–signal option set and the deterrent-signaling recommendations for NCA/NATO decision. Manage escalation and Allied unity throughout.
+
+**Supporting Commands**
+
+- **CDR USSPACECOM:** Provide space domain awareness and PNT support; characterize the GPS/PNT jamming footprint; deconflict degraded-PNT effects on friendly maritime and air operations across the EUCOM/NORTHCOM/SPACECOM seam; support alternate-navigation measures for the maritime force.
+- **CDR USCYBERCOM:** Provide technical attribution support in coordination with the FBI; coordinate any defensive and (NCA-retained) offensive cyberspace planning related to the information and EW activity.
+- **CDR USTRANSCOM:** Provide strategic and intratheater lift to flow and sustain the apportioned force into the High North; coordinate movement under degraded-PNT conditions.
+- **CDR USNORTHCOM (coordinating):** Coordinate the Arctic-approaches and homeland-PNT seam with USEUCOM and USSPACECOM.
+
+**Interagency (coordination)**
+
+- **DoS:** Lead US diplomacy; support the NAC Article 4 process; Embassy Oslo is the in-country focal point; manage attribution-release diplomacy.
+- **DOJ/FBI:** Lead the US attribution and protected-infrastructure investigation.
+- **DHS/CISA:** Lead CUI dependency analysis.
+
+#### (f) Coordinating Instructions
+
+- **Execution authority for sensitive lines** (offensive cyber effect; force beyond self-defense; public attribution release) is NCA-retained per §3(d). Report readiness; do not execute without separate order.
+- **ROE/RUF** per reference (i) and the SILENT FATHOM ROE Supplement (`11_Annexes.md` Annex A). Inherent right of unit self-defense always applies.
+- **Escalation management.** Calibrate presence and signaling to deter without manufacturing confrontation. Immediate report on indications of further sabotage and on movement of the second survey vessel (GS Ladoga) toward the Bear Island Gap corridor (CCIRs, `13_CCIRs.md`).
+- **Legal determination.** USEUCOM, with OSD/General Counsel and the Department of State, will obtain a determination on interdiction authority in international waters and the Norwegian EEZ before any action contemplating visit, board, or diversion.
+- **PNT deconfliction.** Coordinate degraded-PNT effects continuously with USSPACECOM.
+- **Classification/releasability** for Allied sharing per `11_Annexes.md` Annex A and the disclosure guidance.
+
+### 4. SUSTAINMENT / LOGISTICS
+
+USTRANSCOM coordinates strategic and intratheater lift to flow and sustain the apportioned maritime, ISR, and forensic capability into the High North, accounting for degraded-PNT navigation and the polar-night/weather constraints. Forward access, basing, and overflight in Norway (including Evenes) are coordinated under reference (d). Sustainment of high-demand, low-density ocean-surveillance and undersea-ISR enablers is prioritized against standing theater demand.
+
+### 5. COMMAND AND SIGNAL
+
+- **Command.** SecDef exercises authority through CJCS to CDR USEUCOM (supported). USSPACECOM, USCYBERCOM, and USTRANSCOM are supporting. Supported/supporting relationships per §3(e). NCA retains the authorities at §3(d). COMUSEUCOM's NATO (SACEUR) hat is distinct from this US national order.
+- **Signal.** USEUCOM is the supported-command reporting authority. Daily SITREP to the Joint Staff (J3); immediate reports on CCIR triggers. Standard reporting per the USEUCOM order.
+
+### ANNEXES REFERENCED
+
+- A — OPLAW / ROE Supplement (`11_Annexes.md` Annex A)
+- B — Cyber / EW (`11_Annexes.md` Annex B)
+- C — Information (`11_Annexes.md` Annex C)
+- D — Climatology / Astronomical (`11_Annexes.md` Annex D)
+
+### ACKNOWLEDGE.
+
+CJCS SENDS.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/10_JIPOE_Brief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# JIPOE Brief — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (Executive Brief; per JP 2-01.3)
+**Briefing Date:** 140700Z JAN 26
+**Briefed by / to:** USEUCOM J2 to COMUSEUCOM and the maritime-component planning staff (NAVEUR-6F)
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+---
+
+## [Slide 1] Title
+
+Operation SILENT FATHOM — JIPOE Executive Brief. AOR: USEUCOM / European High North. AOI: Norwegian and Barents Seas, the Svalbard approaches and Longyearbyen landing, the Boreal Connect trans-Atlantic corridor, the Finnmark coast, and the Bear Island Gap corridor. NORTHCOM (Arctic approaches), SPACECOM (PNT/SDA), and CYBERCOM (attribution support) are supporting seams. As of 140600Z JAN 26.
+
+## [Slide 2] Step 1 — Define the Operational Environment
+
+- **Joint OE.** A maritime/subsea competition environment in the European High North: a NATO Ally (Norway) whose critical undersea infrastructure (CUI) has sustained four near-simultaneous faults in nine days; the Russian Northern Fleet and its deniable seabed-survey directorate; a shadow-fleet and EW/PNT apparatus; commercial cable and HVDC operators and a contracted cable-repair ship; and an Alliance split on attribution thresholds. The contest is deliberately sub-threshold — below the level of armed conflict and short of any Article 5 trigger.
+- **Area of Operations.** The Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea high seas and the Norwegian EEZ; the Svalbard approaches (Cut Site A, vcnty 76.5N 014.0E) under the 1920 Svalbard Treaty regime; the Boreal Connect corridor (Cut Site B, vcnty 67.5N 002.0E); the Finnmark coastal belt; forward operating from Evenes, with Reitan/Bodø (FOH) and Vardø (E-tjenesten) as the principal Norwegian nodes.
+- **Area of Interest.** The Kola Peninsula (Severomorsk; Northern Fleet and EW garrisons); the GIUK–Bear Gap; the Bear Island Gap corridor (the DP-1 named area); and the trans-Atlantic and Svalbard data-transport paths whose dependencies extend well beyond the theater.
+- **Domains.** The contest is principally **maritime and subsurface**, with the **electromagnetic spectrum** actively contested (GPS/PNT jamming, AIS spoofing). Cyberspace and space are **supporting** rather than the decisive fight — space provides PNT and surveillance that the adversary degrades locally; the seabed, not the network, is the decisive terrain. This is a CUI-protection and attribution problem, not a force-on-force campaign.
+
+## [Slide 3] Step 2 — Environmental Effects on Operations
+
+- **Polar-night climatology.** Mid-January polar night above the Arctic Circle: near-continuous darkness, sea state 4–6, persistent superstructure icing, and an intermittent ice edge in the northern Barents. Severe-weather windows constrain surface, air, and — critically — cable-repair operations, narrowing the periods in which protection and forensics can occur and lengthening restoration timelines.
+- **EMS / PNT environment.** Sustained Kola-based GPS/PNT jamming and AIS spoofing degrade navigation across Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches, peaking 11 JAN. The footprint affects friendly receivers as well as civil and adversary ones; degraded PNT is simultaneously an indicator to be characterized and a constraint on the forces conducting protection and seabed forensics.
+- **Undersea acoustic conditions.** Polar-front and marginal-ice-zone gradients, seasonal layering, and shallow-shelf reverberation complicate the passive-acoustic and seabed-forensic picture; they raise the difficulty of localizing a subsurface contact (e.g., B-90 Vologda) and of distinguishing a deliberate seabed act from an anchor- or trawl-induced fault.
+- **Jurisdictional geography.** The AO straddles Norwegian internal/territorial waters, the Norwegian EEZ, and high seas; the Svalbard Treaty regime overlays the northern approaches. The faults at Cut Site A and Cut Site B lie in waters where enforcement authority over cable damage is legally constrained — a binding feature of the environment, not merely a legal footnote (see Annexes, OPLAW).
+
+## [Slide 4] Step 3 — Evaluate the Adversary
+
+**Capabilities (HIGH confidence).**
+- **Northern Fleet (HQ Severomorsk; CDR ADM Viktor Sorokin, RuN).** Concentrated surface, subsurface, and EW capability on the Kola Peninsula from which all observed activity is most plausibly staged.
+- **GUGI-analog (Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research).** Deniable seabed/deep-submergence survey capability: survey vessels GS Pomor and GS Ladoga and special-mission host submarine B-90 Vologda, assessed able to locate, survey, and interfere with seabed infrastructure at the depths involved.
+- **Shadow fleet.** MV Arktika Star (crude tanker) and MV Kola Trader (bulk carrier), both flags of convenience, providing accident-plausible, deniable proximity to the corridors.
+- **EW / PNT units.** Kola-based Tobol-/Murmansk-BN-analog systems generating the GPS/PNT jamming and AIS-spoofing footprint.
+- **Information apparatus.** State media and a coordinated inauthentic network advancing an attribution-denial narrative.
+- **Seabed-sabotage TTPs (assessed).** Survey/loiter under AIS gaps; ROV or deep-submergence interference at the seabed; mechanisms (anchor drag, cable damage) chosen for accident-plausibility; EW activity that may mask or coincide with a seabed act.
+
+**Intent (LOW confidence — the central problem).** Whether the campaign is meant to coerce Norway and the Alliance, condition the environment for future leverage, or probe Allied response thresholds is unresolved. The deliberate use of deniable means is itself consistent with an intent to stay below the collective-defense threshold.
+
+**Attribution assessment.** J2 assesses **HIGH confidence** that Russia possesses the capability and is the **probable responsible party** for the pattern of incidents. J2 holds **LOW–MODERATE confidence** on conclusive **state-direction** attribution (directed act vs. deniable proxy/shadow-fleet action at state behest vs., in any single case, a genuine accident) and **LOW confidence on intent**. No single reporting stream resolves the gap; it is named as PIR-2.
+
+**Centers of gravity (initial).** *Adversary COG (assessed):* the deniability of the means — the AIS-dark survey/shadow-fleet model, accident-plausible mechanisms, and EW masking that together hold attribution below the threshold of confident, attributable state action. *Friendly COG (initial):* the maritime force's ability to develop attribution and protect CUI and repair operations while controlling escalation, dependent on a subsurface-inclusive domain-awareness picture, PNT resilience, and Allied/interagency coherence.
+
+## [Slide 5] Step 4 — Determine Adversary Courses of Action
+
+**COA 1 — Continued Deniable, Sub-Threshold Sabotage (MOST LIKELY; moderate confidence).**
+Russia continues paced, attribution-ambiguous interference against additional corridors — most plausibly the Bear Island Gap corridor as GS Ladoga transits — using survey/shadow-fleet platforms under AIS gaps and intermittent EW, calibrated to stay below the armed-conflict threshold and to exploit the genuine ambiguity of cable faults in these waters.
+*Indicators:* GS Ladoga track converging on the Bear Island Gap corridor (NAI Bear-Island-Gap / DP-1); renewed AIS gaps by survey or shadow-fleet vessels near a corridor; localized GPS/PNT jamming coincident with a new fault; sustained attribution-denial messaging.
+
+**COA 2 — Escalatory / Coercive Incident (MOST DANGEROUS; low–moderate confidence).**
+Russia escalates against a higher-value target or stages a coercive incident: a deliberate cut of the residual Svalbard fiber (SVL-1) to fully isolate Longyearbyen/SvalSat, a more consequential strike on the Boreal Connect trans-Atlantic transport, or an at-sea harassment/unsafe-intercept of a repair or escorting unit to impose costs and test Alliance unity around Svalbard.
+*Indicators:* GUGI-analog or shadow-fleet positioning on SVL-1 or the Boreal Connect main path; B-90 Vologda subsurface activity near a corridor; surge or repositioning of Northern Fleet surface combatants toward the Svalbard approaches; aggressive close-aboard maneuvering or targeting-radar illumination of friendly/repair units; sharpened coercive state messaging.
+
+## [Slide 6] Indications & Warning Matrix (extract)
+
+| Indicator | Associated COA | Collection (NAI / asset) | Reports to |
+|-----------|----------------|--------------------------|------------|
+| GS Ladoga track converging on Bear Island Gap | COA 1 (DP-1 trigger) | NAI Bear-Island-Gap; P-8A / MQ-9 / SSN / space | CDR (immediate) |
+| New AIS gap by survey / shadow-fleet vessel near a corridor | COA 1/2 | Corridor NAIs; commercial AIS / EO-SAR / MPA | J2 / JOC |
+| GPS/PNT jamming coincident with a new fault | COA 1/2 | Finnmark / Svalbard EMS NAIs; SPACECOM / E-tjenesten | J2 / SPACECOM cell |
+| B-90 Vologda subsurface activity near a corridor | COA 2 | Corridor NAIs; USNS Cascadia (T-AGOS) / SSN | CDR (immediate) |
+| Northern Fleet surface surge toward Svalbard approaches | COA 2 | GIUK–Bear / Svalbard NAIs; MPA / space | CDR (immediate) |
+
+Full matrix in `13_CCIRs.md` and `15_Event_Template_NAI_Matrix.xlsx`.
+
+## [Slide 7] Confidence Assessment
+
+- Russian capability: **HIGH** (Northern Fleet, GUGI-analog, EW/PNT, shadow fleet).
+- Probable Russian responsibility for the pattern: **HIGH** (probable; not conclusive).
+- Conclusive state-direction attribution per incident: **LOW–MODERATE** — the binding analytic gap (PIR-2).
+- Adversary intent: **LOW**.
+- GS Ladoga next-target intent: **LOW–MODERATE** (track suggestive, purpose unconfirmed; PIR-3).
+- Jamming extent / effect on friendly ops: **MODERATE** (footprint observed, full intent uncertain; PIR-4).
+
+**Key intelligence gaps:** (1) state-direction vs. deniable proxy vs. accident per incident; (2) GS Ladoga next-target indication against the Bear Island Gap corridor; (3) the subsurface picture — B-90 Vologda location and any deployed seabed payloads; (4) full characterization of the GPS/PNT jamming; (5) the precise military-communications and financial-clearing dependency on each affected cable and the realistic restoration timeline.
+
+## [Slide 8] Implications for JIPOE Consumers
+
+- Treat **attribution as an objective in its own right**, not an assumption; protection and seabed forensics are mutually reinforcing collection that close the PIR-2 gap.
+- Plan **COA-robust** across continued sub-threshold sabotage and an escalatory/coercive incident — do not optimize only to the most-likely COA.
+- Wire the **GS Ladoga / Bear Island Gap** indication to DP-1 and a CCIR; it is the time-sensitive branch.
+- Resource **PNT resilience and EMS deconfliction** continuously against the jamming, across the EUCOM / NORTHCOM / SPACECOM seam.
+- Manage **escalation** throughout: the deniability that frustrates attribution also caps the permissible response — the approach must deter repetition without crossing the Article 5 / armed-conflict threshold.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/11_Annexes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Annexes — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Planning Annex Compilation (supporting the linked-order chain and CIPG)
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+---
+
+## Annex A — OPLAW / Legal
+
+**Legal basis for US role.**
+- No new self-defense trigger is invoked. US entry and role rest on: (a) the Kingdom of Norway's request for Allied support; (b) NATO Washington Treaty **Article 4** consultations requested by Norway — **Article 5 is deliberately not invoked** (sub-threshold); (c) the US–Norway Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA 2021) for access and basing; and (d) US Title 10 support-to-ally / forward maritime presence.
+
+**Submarine-cable regime (UNCLOS).**
+- UNCLOS **Art. 113** requires each state to make it a punishable offense for a vessel flying its flag, or a person subject to its jurisdiction, to break or injure a submarine cable willfully or by culpable negligence.
+- **Art. 114** addresses liability of cable owners to one another; **Art. 115** provides for indemnity of vessels that sacrifice gear to avoid injuring a cable. The regime is principally one of flag-state penalty and inter-owner liability, not third-state enforcement.
+- Enforcement therefore runs principally through **flag-state jurisdiction**. There is **no general coastal-state or third-state authority to board, search, seize, or divert a foreign-flagged vessel on the high seas or in the EEZ for cable damage** absent flag-state consent, a treaty basis, or another recognized exception.
+- **Consequence.** For the faults at Cut Site A (Svalbard approaches) and Cut Site B (Norwegian Sea high seas), and for activity in the Norwegian EEZ, **US/Allied enforcement authority over cable damage in international waters is limited**. The binding constraint on interdiction is legal/jurisdictional, not military, and it persists even where the responsible vessel is identified.
+
+**Svalbard Treaty regime.**
+- The 1920 Svalbard Treaty confirms Norwegian sovereignty over the archipelago while granting treaty-party nationals equal economic access. Art. 9 constrains the use of the archipelago for "warlike purposes" and is the source of the demilitarization nuance that bounds military posture in and around Svalbard.
+- Operations near the Svalbard approaches and the Longyearbyen landing — including any escort of repair operations on SVL — must account for this regime and for Russia's standing readiness to characterize Allied activity there as militarization. It is a deliberate legal seam, not a settled permission; coordinate posture with Norway as the sovereign and with the legal-determination track below.
+
+**ROE / RUF summary (SILENT FATHOM ROE Supplement to CJCSI 3121.01B).**
+- Inherent right of **unit and individual self-defense** always applies, including defense of accompanied repair and partner units.
+- Posture toward Russian state vessels is **defensive**; **no kinetic action against Russian state vessels** and **no entry into Russian territorial waters**.
+- **No boarding, seizure, or diversion of vessels in international waters absent a positive legal determination and granted authority.** Shadowing, querying on bridge-to-bridge, overt presence, and persistent ISR are permitted within standing guidance.
+- All operations remain **below the threshold of armed conflict.** **Do not invoke or imply NATO Article 5.**
+- Coordinate with Norway as host/lead and through the NAC consultative process; comply with UNCLOS and the Svalbard Treaty regime.
+- **No public attribution release without NCA and NATO coordination.**
+
+**Open decision item.** The **interdiction-authority determination** — whether, and on what basis, friendly forces may interdict GS Ladoga or a shadow-fleet vessel approaching the Bear Island Gap corridor in international waters / the Norwegian EEZ — is an **unresolved legal question** referred for determination. It is recorded as FFIR-2 and is a precondition for any action beyond shadowing at DP-1.
+
+**Releasability.** Releasable to Norway and overt Allied contributors (UK, NATO MARCOM CUI Cell, SNMG1) on the CUI-protection and repair-escort lines per disclosure guidance; attribution-support and interdiction-option legal analysis held more closely pending the determination above.
+
+## Annex B — Cyber / EW / Spectrum
+
+- **GPS/PNT jamming picture.** Sustained Kola-based GPS/PNT jamming and AIS spoofing degrade navigation across Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches, peaking 11 JAN coincident with the Nordkapp Data Link faults. Source is assessed as Northern Fleet EW units on the Kola Peninsula (Tobol-/Murmansk-BN-analog). The footprint affects friendly, civil, and adversary receivers alike; full characterization of extent, pattern, and effect is a collection priority (PIR-4).
+- **EMS / PNT management.** Establish PNT-resilient maritime operations and alternate-navigation measures (inertial, celestial, eLORAN-type and visual backups) in coordination with **USSPACECOM** (PNT / space-domain awareness).
+- **Multi-CCMD deconfliction.** Deconflict friendly EMS use and counter-EW measures across the EUCOM / NORTHCOM / SPACECOM seam; manage spectrum per JP 3-85. Degraded PNT is a planning constraint on maritime, air, and repair operations — including precision station-keeping for seabed forensics — not only an intelligence indicator (FFIR-4).
+- **Defensive cyberspace operations (DCO).** Protect maritime-force networks, ISR feeds, and the JOC; treat commercial cable-landing and operator networks as both an intelligence opportunity and an OPSEC risk.
+- **Cyber attribution support.** Coordinate attribution-support arrangements with **USCYBERCOM** (supporting CCMD) and, on the protected-infrastructure line, with DOJ/FBI; offensive cyberspace options are NCA-retained.
+- **Geolocation feed.** Cyber/EW geolocation of the jamming source contributes to the broader attribution problem (PIR-2) and is synchronized with the Information annex and seabed/acoustic forensics.
+
+## Annex C — Information / IO
+
+- **Adversary narrative.** Russian state media and a coordinated inauthentic network advance an attribution-denial narrative on two complementary lines: (1) that the faults are routine "trawler/anchor accidents" in busy fishing grounds, and (2) that any Allied investigation is a "NATO false-flag" pretext to militarize the Arctic. The narrative exploits the genuine ambiguity of cable faults and raises the evidentiary bar the Alliance must clear before any public attribution.
+- **Effect on the operation.** The denial narrative is calibrated to the same deniability the adversary relies on physically; it converts the attribution gap (PIR-2) into an information-environment vulnerability and pressures Allied cohesion, where members already differ on naming Russia publicly.
+- **Counter-messaging / PA posture.** Lead with accurate, first-with-the-truth messaging on infrastructure security, freedom of navigation, and Allied reassurance; expose the pattern with releasable information while avoiding over-claiming attribution.
+- **Attribution-release discipline.** **No public attribution release without NCA and NATO coordination**; messaging must not outrun the assessed confidence (probable Russian responsibility; not yet conclusive on state direction).
+- **OIE / MISO and MILDEC.** Counter the denial narrative to Norwegian, Allied, and regional audiences in coordination with DoS (Embassy Oslo / EUR) and NATO strategic communication; MILDEC supports escalation-control and option ambiguity within authorities; coordinate with OPSEC and Annex B.
+- Attribution of the influence activity itself is **moderate confidence**.
+
+## Annex D — Climatology
+
+- **Polar night.** Mid-January, near-continuous darkness above the Arctic Circle; at Longyearbyen the sun remains below the horizon throughout the period, with only brief civil twilight farther south along Finnmark. Limited natural illumination is favorable for low-signature work but degrades EO ISR and at-sea recovery; detailed BMNT/EENT and twilight tables maintained by theater METOC.
+- **Sea state.** Sea state 4–6 prevailing across the Norwegian and Barents Seas, higher in passing low-pressure systems; the higher sea states limit small-boat, RHIB, and over-the-side ROV operations and degrade towed-array and seabed-survey precision.
+- **Icing.** Recurrent superstructure and topside **icing** in the cold polar air mass — a sustainment, flight-deck, deck-handling, and small-boat constraint that compounds the sea-state limits.
+- **Ice edge.** Intermittent marginal ice zone in the northern Barents and near the Svalbard approaches; the edge position shifts with wind and current and constrains the northern operating area and any approach to Cut Site A.
+- **Operating windows.** Severe-weather windows recur on a multi-day cycle and constrain surface, air, and especially cable-repair operations, lengthening restoration timelines and narrowing the periods available for protection and forensics. Astronomical and sea-state detail supports `06_Critical_Geography.md`.
+
+## Annex E — Time / Date & Critical-Undersea-Infrastructure Dependency
+
+- **Reference conventions.** All times Zulu (Z) unless noted; mainland Norway local = Z+1 (CET). DTG format DDHHMMZ MON YY; geographic references in lat/long (WGS-84) and named features per `06_Critical_Geography.md`.
+- **STARTEX:** 140600Z JAN 26.
+- **Incident arc (pre-STARTEX, framing the analysis):** 07 JAN — SVL-2 severed at Cut Site A (Svalbard approaches); 09 JAN — Boreal Connect partial fault at Cut Site B (Norwegian Sea); 11 JAN — Nordkapp Data Link intermittent faults coincident with the jamming peak; 12 JAN — Arctic Bridge HVDC protective trip / suspected anchor-drag damage; 13 JAN — GS Ladoga departs the Kola area toward the Bear Island Gap corridor.
+- **CUI dependency note (factual).** The affected infrastructure carries more than civilian internet traffic. **SVL** (twin Svalbard Link, Longyearbyen–Harstad) transports Svalbard Satellite Station ground links and a portion of **allied military-communications transport**; **Boreal Connect** (Norway–Iceland–North America) likewise carries **allied military-communications transport and financial-clearing data**. SVL-2 is severed; **SVL-1 carries the residual Svalbard connectivity**, so the redundancy lost on the Svalbard pair raises the consequence of any further cut. These dependencies inform CUI-restoration prioritization (FFIR-1) and operational risk; the full picture is developed in `05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md` and `16_OSINT_Bundle.md`.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/12_CIPG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# Commander's Initial Planning Guidance (CIPG) — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Commander's Initial Planning Guidance (per JP 5-0)
+**Commander:** GEN Marcus T. Hale, USA — COMUSEUCOM (acting in US national capacity)
+**Issued to:** Commander, NAVEUR-6F (supported maritime commander); Commander, SOCEUR; USEUCOM staff
+**Date:** 140900Z JAN 26
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+> I am dual-hatted as SACEUR. This guidance is issued in my **US national** capacity. Coordination with the NATO chain runs through the NAC consultative process and MARCOM; keep the two lanes deconflicted and do not let our national planning outrun Allied political consensus.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Operational Design
+
+### 1.1 The Problem
+Over nine days an adversary has degraded four pieces of critical undersea infrastructure (CUI) in the Norwegian and Barents Seas and laid a coincident GPS/PNT-jamming and AIS-spoofing footprint across Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches. The acts are deliberate, plausibly Russian state-directed, and deliberately deniable — executed by survey vessels and shadow-fleet merchants operating in international waters and a contested legal regime, paced and packaged to stay below the armed-conflict threshold. **The central tension is this: we must deter and, where we can, defend against further sabotage and reassure Norway and the Allies, without handing Moscow the escalation it is courting and without ambiguously implying Article 5.** Too forceful a posture invites a confrontation we are not authorized to seek; too little invites repetition. Our task is to find the operating space in between — to deny, attribute, and signal below the threshold.
+
+### 1.2 Operational Approach
+Establish a subsurface-inclusive maritime domain awareness picture over the cable corridors; protect the highest-dependency CUI and the cable-repair effort by presence and escort; develop attribution to a confidence sufficient to enable a coordinated Allied political response; and signal resolve through calibrated, reversible presence rather than force. We lead with Norway as host and lead, operate inside the NAC consultative framework, and set conditions to transition CUI security back to Allied and commercial stewardship. We compete in the information environment to deny the adversary an uncontested attribution-denial narrative.
+
+### 1.3 Lines of Effort
+- **LOE 1 — Protect CUI.** *Main effort initially.* Surveillance and protective presence over the cable/interconnector corridors; escort and protect cable-repair operations; prioritize by **military-communications dependency**, not by cable length or commercial value.
+- **LOE 2 — Attribute.** Fuse vessel tracks, AIS gaps, EW geolocation, and seabed/acoustic forensics — in support of CYBERCOM and FBI — to close the gap between observed activity and state direction.
+- **LOE 3 — Deter & Signal.** Calibrated, reversible presence and declaratory measures; shadowing of adversary survey vessels; deterrent signaling options that support, not pre-empt, Article 4 consultations.
+- **LOE 4 — Reassure Allies.** Visible commitment to Norwegian sovereignty and Allied unity; integrate UK, SNMG1, and Nordic partners; preserve cohesion across divergent Allied attribution and response thresholds.
+
+### 1.4 Decisive Points
+- A subsurface-inclusive MDA picture sufficient to cue protection and forensics in the corridors.
+- A legal determination on interdiction authority in international waters and the Norwegian EEZ (gates what we may do to adversary vessels).
+- Attribution developed to a confidence that can underwrite a coordinated NATO political response.
+- Cable-repair of the highest-dependency segment escorted and completed.
+- PNT-resilient maritime operations sustained in the jamming footprint.
+
+### 1.5 Termination / End-State Criteria (initial — deliberately incomplete)
+Planners will treat these as a starting point requiring staff development and higher-headquarters clarification:
+- Further sabotage **deterred or defeated** — the threshold that distinguishes "deterred" from merely "no incident this week" is **undefined and must be staffed against a defined observation window.**
+- Attribution developed to a confidence "sufficient to support a coordinated NATO political response" — **the confidence standard, and who certifies it, is not specified and must be coordinated with the NAC track and the interagency.**
+- CUI restoration **enabled and prioritized by military dependency** — restoration is a commercial/Allied function; **the conditions under which the military protection effort transitions off are not yet defined.**
+- Allied unity and Norwegian sovereignty reassured **— the measure of "reassured" is left to higher direction.**
+- Escalation controlled and kept below the Article 5 / armed-conflict threshold.
+
+The relationship between these military criteria and the **political** end-state of the Article 4 process is intentionally left to higher direction. Identify the gaps; do not assume them closed.
+
+## 2. Initial Commander's Intent
+
+**Purpose.** Protect the undersea infrastructure the Alliance depends on, deny the adversary further low-cost sabotage, and help build the attribution case that lets NATO respond as one — all while keeping this crisis below the threshold of armed conflict.
+
+**Method.** Surge a subsurface-inclusive surveillance picture over the corridors; protect the highest-dependency CUI and the repair ship by presence and escort; shadow and document adversary survey and shadow-fleet activity; fuse the forensic and intelligence picture to attribute; and signal resolve through reversible presence calibrated to support the Article 4 track. Lead with Norway; operate inside the NAC framework and UNCLOS; obtain the legal determination before we contemplate any action against vessels.
+
+**End-State.** Further sabotage deterred or defeated; attribution sufficient to enable a coordinated NATO political response; the highest-dependency CUI restored or on a clear restoration path; Norwegian sovereignty and Allied unity reassured; escalation controlled below the Article 5 threshold; the force postured to transition CUI security to Allied and commercial leads.
+
+## 3. Joint Function Planning Guidance
+
+- **Command and Control.** Designate NAVEUR-6F the supported maritime commander; SOCEUR supporting. Stand up a CUI coordination construct that ties the US national effort to the **NATO MARCOM Critical Undersea Infrastructure Cell (Northwood)** and the **Norwegian Joint HQ (Reitan/Bodø)** without blurring the US/NATO chains — I am dual-hatted, but this plan is national. Establish the **SPACECOM PNT deconfliction** link and the **CYBERCOM** attribution-support link as standing supporting-CCMD relationships, and coordinate the NORTHCOM Arctic-approaches seam. Integrate Norwegian, UK, SNMG1, and interagency (DoS Embassy Oslo, DOJ/FBI, DHS/CISA) liaison. Publish the battle rhythm and the CCIR immediate-report flow early.
+- **Intelligence.** Main intelligence problem is **attribution** (PIR-2) and **warning of the next attack** (PIR-1, PIR-3). Build a subsurface-inclusive MDA picture; fuse US, E-tjenesten (Vardø), and OSINT reporting. Treat ISR as a scarce, weather- and PNT-constrained resource and publish the collection plan (`13_CCIRs.md`). Stand up an attribution working cell with CYBERCOM and FBI; characterize the gap between deniable proxy activity and state direction rather than overstating it.
+- **Fires.** Predominantly **non-kinetic and informational** — presence, shadowing, declaratory signaling, and information effects. **No kinetic action against Russian state vessels; no offensive fires.** Kinetic fires are constrained to unit self-defense under the ROE Supplement. Hold any escalatory option for NCA decision. The fires fight here is escalation control, not target servicing.
+- **Movement and Maneuver.** Forward-employ TF-65 surface and CTF-67 maritime patrol into the High North; sequence presence to cover the highest-dependency corridors and the repair-ship track first. Plan subsurface maneuver (SSN) for the ISR/seabed task. Do not enter Russian territorial waters; respect the Svalbard Treaty demilitarization nuance in posture around the archipelago.
+- **Protection.** Force protection in a **PNT-degraded, EW-contested** environment: assume degraded GPS and spoofed AIS in the operating area and plan alternate navigation and EMCON accordingly. Layered protection for the repair ship and escorts. **Protect the CUI itself** as a protection task — prioritized by military dependency — and protect the integrity of our own positioning, navigation, and timing.
+- **Sustainment.** This is a **polar-night, Arctic** sustainment problem: near-continuous darkness, sea state 4–6, icing, and an intermittent ice edge constrain replenishment, aviation, and forward basing. Sustain forward operations from Evenes and Norwegian host-nation support under the SDCA; plan for weather-driven windows and cold-weather readiness as limiting factors, not afterthoughts.
+- **Information.** Compete actively. PA-led, first-with-the-truth messaging; counter the adversary attribution-denial narrative ("trawler/anchor accident," "NATO false flag") in coordination with DoS and the NATO information effort. **No public attribution release without NCA and NATO coordination.** Synchronize OIE/MISO, EW/EMSO, and cyber planning; protect the deterrent-signaling effort with tight PA-OPSEC coordination.
+
+## 4. Branches and Sequels to Develop
+- **Branch A — GS Ladoga targets the Bear Island Gap corridor:** intercept/shadow/divert decision package (DP-1); presence reinforcement; legal triggers for any vessel action.
+- **Branch B — Additional sabotage during repair:** surge escort to the repair ship (DP-2); reprioritize CUI protection by dependency.
+- **Branch C — Attribution matures to coordination threshold:** escalate Article 4 toward a coordinated deterrent signal (DP-3); release-authority and NATO synchronization.
+- **Branch D — PNT degradation expands / affects air ISR:** activate counter-PNT and alternate-navigation measures (DP-5); SPACECOM deconfliction.
+- **Sequel — Transition:** hand CUI security to Allied and commercial leads; redeploy; sustain the attribution and information follow-through.
+
+## 5. CCIRs (initial — refined in 13_CCIRs.md)
+- **PIR-1:** Will Russia conduct additional sabotage against CUI within the next 14 days, and against which corridor?
+- **PIR-2:** What is the assessed attribution confidence linking the damage to Russian STATE direction versus deniable proxy action?
+- **PIR-3:** Is GS Ladoga positioning to target the Bear Island Gap corridor?
+- **PIR-4:** What is the extent and pattern of GPS/PNT jamming and its effect on friendly maritime and air operations?
+- **FFIR-1:** Status of CUI — what is down, restoration timelines, military-communications dependency impact.
+- **FFIR-2:** Legal determination on interdiction authority in international waters / Norwegian EEZ.
+- **FFIR-3:** Allied force availability and ROE alignment (SNMG1, Norway, UK RFA Proteus).
+- **FFIR-4:** PNT resilience / alternate-navigation status for the maritime force.
+
+## 6. Coalition / Partner Considerations
+Norway is host and lead; we support, we do not supplant. Integrate UK (RFA Proteus seabed-warfare role), SNMG1, and the MARCOM CUI Cell; bring Finland and Sweden in as NATO members per their national arrangements. Expect **divergent Allied thresholds** for attribution and response — preserve cohesion and do not outrun consensus. Coordinate commercial cable operators and the repair-ship schedule as non-force stakeholders. Coordinate releasability through the NAC and the interagency.
+
+## 7. Strategic Communication Themes
+Allied infrastructure and Norwegian sovereignty are protected; this is a measured, lawful, Allied response below the threshold of conflict; escalation is Moscow's choice, not ours; attribution will be established deliberately and credibly, not asserted. Synchronize with DoS, Embassy Oslo, and the NATO information effort; counter the "accident / false flag" narrative with consistent, verifiable action.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/14_Running_Estimates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# Running Estimates — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Pre-Mission-Analysis Staff Running Estimates (by joint function, per JP 5-0)
+**As of:** 141100Z JAN 26
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+> Each estimate: current running assessment • key shortfalls / limiting factors • running risk. Analytic judgments throughout; to be refined through mission analysis.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Command and Control (C2)
+
+- **Running assessment.** NAVEUR-6F is designated supported maritime commander; SOCEUR supporting; TF-65 (surface) and CTF-67 (MPA) forward-employed to the High North. The architecture is workable, but it carries an unusual coordination load: the US national chain runs parallel to the NATO chain through a dual-hatted COMUSEUCOM/SACEUR, and the effort depends on three external coordination links — the **NATO MARCOM CUI Cell (Northwood)**, the **Norwegian Joint HQ (Reitan/Bodø)**, and the supporting CCMDs (**SPACECOM** for PNT deconfliction, **CYBERCOM** for attribution, with a **NORTHCOM** Arctic-approaches seam). Liaison with Norway, UK, SNMG1, and the interagency is forming.
+- **Key shortfalls / limiting factors.** The US/NATO chain seam is the principal C2 risk: national planning could outrun NAC consensus, or be read as implying Article 5. Multi-CCMD coordination (EUCOM/NORTHCOM/SPACECOM/CYBERCOM) adds latency to PNT and attribution decisions. Comms in the High North are themselves degraded by the same CUI damage and jamming this operation is meant to counter.
+- **Running risk.** MODERATE-HIGH. Mitigated by early publication of supported/supporting relationships, a CCIR immediate-report flow, and a standing CUI coordination construct that keeps the national and NATO lanes deconflicted.
+
+## 2. Intelligence
+
+- **Running assessment.** Adversary capability is well understood; **intent and, above all, attribution are the binding gaps.** No single source resolves whether the damage was state-directed or deniable-proxy action (PIR-2); the picture must be fused from vessel tracks, AIS gaps, EW geolocation, seabed/acoustic forensics, E-tjenesten reporting, and OSINT. Warning of the next attack (PIR-1/PIR-3) and characterization of the jamming (PIR-4) compete for the same scarce collection.
+- **Key shortfalls / limiting factors.** **Arctic ISR coverage** is thin and weather/polar-night constrained; **PNT degradation** corrupts the sensors and platforms we would use to build the picture; subsurface MDA over the corridors is immature; attribution is inherently uncertain against a deniability-designed adversary; collection assets (P-8, T-AGOS, SSN, RQ-4/MQ-9) are over-subscribed across corridor-watch, forensics, and PNT-characterization tasks.
+- **Running risk.** HIGH. Mitigated by a daily collection-deconfliction board, a CYBERCOM/FBI attribution working cell, and disciplined characterization of the attribution gap rather than over-claiming.
+
+## 3. Fires
+
+- **Running assessment.** This is a **non-kinetic and informational** fight: presence, shadowing, declaratory signaling, and information effects. Kinetic fires are constrained to unit self-defense; there is no offensive-fires role and an explicit restraint against kinetic action against Russian state vessels. The "fires" problem is escalation control — calibrating reversible signals that deter without provoking.
+- **Key shortfalls / limiting factors.** Positive ID and intent characterization in cluttered, AIS-spoofed traffic are difficult, raising the risk of a self-defense engagement that escalates. Any action above self-defense is NCA-retained, so the menu of usable effects is narrow and slow. Signaling effectiveness is hard to measure.
+- **Running risk.** MODERATE. Mitigated by tight ROE discipline, a non-lethal-effects synchronization with Information, and contingency packages held for NCA decision (Branches A/C).
+
+## 4. Movement and Maneuver
+
+- **Running assessment.** Forward presence is building with TF-65 surface combatants, CTF-67 MPA from Evenes, USNS Cascadia, and USS Cheyenne, alongside Norwegian, UK, and SNMG1 units. The maneuver problem is covering multiple dispersed corridors (Svalbard approaches, Norwegian Sea, Finnmark coast, Bear Island Gap) and the repair-ship track simultaneously, across long Arctic distances.
+- **Key shortfalls / limiting factors.** **Escort capacity is the pressure point:** the allocated surface force is thin against the apportioned task, and committing escorts to the repair ship (DP-2) trades off against corridor presence and the Ladoga decision (DP-1). Severe-weather windows, sea state 4–6, icing, and the intermittent ice edge constrain surface and air maneuver. The Svalbard Treaty demilitarization nuance and the restraint on entering Russian territorial waters bound maneuver geography.
+- **Running risk.** MODERATE-HIGH. Mitigated by sequencing presence to the highest-dependency corridors first, integrating Allied hulls (RFA Proteus, SNMG1, Norwegian units), and reserving the SSN for the subsurface ISR/forensics task.
+
+## 5. Protection
+
+- **Running assessment.** The force must operate in a **PNT-degraded, EW-contested** environment — degraded GPS and spoofed AIS are assumed in the operating area. Protection spans three objects: the force, the cable-repair effort, and the **CUI itself** (prioritized by military-communications dependency). Force-protection posture is being set for a contested-navigation environment.
+- **Key shortfalls / limiting factors.** **PNT degradation** affects navigation safety, sensor performance, and GPS-timing-dependent systems; alternate-navigation fits and procedures are uneven across the force (FFIR-4). Protecting dispersed seabed infrastructure with limited hulls is infeasible everywhere at once, forcing dependency-based prioritization. Polar-night and icing degrade lookout, aviation, and small-boat operations.
+- **Running risk.** HIGH (driven by PNT). Mitigated by alternate-navigation activation (DP-5), EMCON discipline, layered repair-ship protection, and dependency-prioritized CUI coverage.
+
+## 6. Sustainment
+
+- **Running assessment.** Forward operations are sustained from Evenes and Norwegian host-nation support under the SDCA, with theater reach-back. The defining condition is the **Arctic polar-night** environment: near-continuous darkness, sea state 4–6, icing, and an intermittent ice edge in the northern Barents.
+- **Key shortfalls / limiting factors.** **Polar-night sustainment** compresses replenishment, aviation, and fuel-handling into weather windows; cold-weather readiness, de-icing, and crew endurance are limiting, not incidental. Forward basing depth in the High North is shallow and host-nation-dependent. Long transit distances stress logistics responsiveness; the same CUI/PNT degradation complicates sustainment C2.
+- **Running risk.** MODERATE. Mitigated by treating weather windows as a planning driver, leaning on Norwegian host-nation support, and building cold-weather readiness into force generation.
+
+## 7. Information
+
+- **Running assessment.** The information environment is **actively contested.** A Russian state-media and coordinated inauthentic-network effort is pushing an attribution-denial narrative ("trawler/anchor accident," "NATO false flag") to keep the incidents ambiguous and below the threshold. The friendly effort must contest this narrative, reassure Allies and the Norwegian public, and protect deterrent signaling.
+- **Key shortfalls / limiting factors.** **No public attribution release is authorized without NCA and NATO coordination**, so the friendly narrative must compete while the attribution case is still maturing — a speed disadvantage against the adversary. Divergent Allied messaging thresholds risk incoherence. EW/EMSO contention with the jamming environment complicates the technical side of the IE.
+- **Running risk.** MODERATE-HIGH. Mitigated by a PA-led first-with-the-truth posture synchronized with DoS and the NATO information effort, OIE/MISO counter-narrative, and tight PA-OPSEC coordination around signaling.

packets/C1_SILENT_FATHOM/16_OSINT_Bundle.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# OSINT Bundle — Operation SILENT FATHOM
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+**Product Type:** Open-Source Intelligence Compilation (J2 OSINT cell)
+**Compilation window:** 05 JAN – 13 JAN 26
+**Source basis:** Wire/press reporting, commercial maritime (AIS) and flight-tracking aggregators, social-media monitoring, commercial satellite-imagery vendors, cable-operator and grid-operator public notices, and NGO/think-tank/academic assessment. All items are open-source; reliability and credibility are graded (Admiralty-style: source A–F / info 1–6). Entities are fictionalized for the synthetic frame.
+**Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+> Caveat: OSINT here is indicative, not confirmatory. Several items are unverified social-media or partisan-media claims included precisely because they shape the information environment and public narrative. Cable and interconnector faults in these waters arise from genuine accidents as well as deliberate acts; grading reflects that ambiguity. No single item below establishes attribution.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Press / Wire Reporting
+
+| # | Date | Item (summary) | Source (fictionalized) | Grade |
+|---|------|----------------|------------------------|-------|
+| P-1 | 07 JAN | "Svalbard internet and SvalSat data links disrupted; operator confirms one of two fiber cables faulted near Svalbard." | Norwegian national broadcaster | B2 |
+| P-2 | 09 JAN | "Trans-Atlantic Boreal Connect cable reports partial outage; rerouting under way, operator cites 'external damage' under investigation." | International tech/telecom wire | B2 |
+| P-3 | 11 JAN | "Navigation warnings issued for Finnmark coast amid widespread GPS disruption; Nordkapp fiber faults reported." | Regional maritime-affairs outlet | B2 |
+| P-4 | 12 JAN | "Power link in the Norwegian Sea trips offline; grid operator points to suspected anchor damage." | European energy-sector outlet | B3 |
+| P-5 | 12 JAN | "Norway summons Russian envoy, signals NATO consultations over 'pattern' of subsea incidents." | Major international outlet (Oslo dateline) | A2 |
+| P-6 | 12 JAN | Russian state media: "Western hysteria over cables; faults are routine trawler and anchor accidents in busy fishing grounds." | Russian state broadcaster | C4 |
+| P-7 | 13 JAN | "Analysts question coincidence of four infrastructure faults in nine days; attribution remains unproven." | International wire | B2 |
+| P-8 | 13 JAN | Russian state media: "NATO seeks pretext to militarize the Arctic; 'false-flag' over cables alleged." | Russian state-aligned outlet | C5 |
+| P-9 | 13 JAN | "Cable-repair vessel chartered; operator warns weather and polar night may push restoration timelines into weeks." | Telecom-industry trade press | B2 |
+| P-10 | 13 JAN | "Finland and Sweden back Norway's call for consultations; Allies said to differ on naming Russia publicly." | European wire (Brussels dateline) | B2 |
+
+## 2. Maritime (AIS) and Flight Tracking
+
+| # | Date | Observation | Source | Grade |
+|---|------|-------------|--------|-------|
+| M-1 | 05–07 JAN | Russian-flagged survey vessel GS Pomor departs Kola area; AIS shows an extended gap bracketing the SVL-2 fault timeframe in the Svalbard approaches. | Commercial AIS aggregator | B3 |
+| M-2 | 08–09 JAN | Shadow-fleet bulk carrier MV Kola Trader (flag of convenience) tracks near the Boreal Connect corridor with a multi-hour AIS gap over the relevant segment. | Commercial AIS / ship-spotter | C3 |
+| M-3 | 11–12 JAN | Crude tanker MV Arktika Star (flag of convenience) transits the Norwegian Sea near the Arctic Bridge HVDC corridor; AIS gap of ~24h in the preceding day. | Commercial AIS aggregator | C3 |
+| M-4 | 06–11 JAN | Persistent AIS position anomalies / "spoofed" tracks clustered over Finnmark and the Svalbard approaches — consistent with deliberate AIS spoofing rather than receiver outage. | Commercial AIS integrity monitor | B2 |
+| M-5 | 13 JAN | Second Russian survey vessel GS Ladoga departs Kola area on a northwesterly track; projected course consistent with transit toward the Bear Island Gap area. | Commercial AIS / ship-spotter | C3 |
+| F-1 | 06–11 JAN | Civil flight-tracking shows GNSS-jamming flags and position-integrity warnings over Finnmark/Barents airspace, peaking 11 JAN. | Flight-tracking aggregator | B2 |
+
+## 3. Commercial Satellite Imagery (described)
+
+| # | Date | Observation | Source | Grade |
+|---|------|-------------|--------|-------|
+| I-1 | 06 JAN | EO/SAR pass places a vessel matching GS Pomor's profile loitering in the Svalbard approaches near the SVL corridor, station-keeping pattern. | Commercial EO/SAR vendor | C2 |
+| I-2 | 08 JAN | Imagery of GS Pomor with deck arrangement (stern A-frame / handling gear) consistent with seabed survey or ROV launch-and-recovery operations. | Commercial EO vendor | C2 |
+| I-3 | 11 JAN | SAR-derived vessel detections near the HVDC corridor where one track corresponds to an AIS-dark contact (no correlating AIS). | Commercial SAR vendor | C3 |
+| I-4 | 13 JAN | Imagery confirms GS Ladoga underway from the Kola area; heading northwest. | Commercial EO vendor | C2 |
+| I-5 | 09 JAN | EO pass near the Boreal Connect corridor places a bulk-carrier-profile vessel consistent with MV Kola Trader; no correlating AIS for part of the timeframe. | Commercial EO vendor | C3 |
+
+## 4. Social-Media Monitoring (information environment)
+
+| # | Date | Theme | Notes | Grade |
+|---|------|-------|-------|-------|
+| S-1 | 12–13 JAN | "#JustAnAnchor / accident" narrative | Rapid, partly inorganic amplification of the trawler/anchor-accident framing; clusters link to Russian state-aligned and inauthentic accounts. | C4 |
+| S-2 | 12–13 JAN | "#NATOFalseFlag" narrative | Coordinated push alleging NATO staged the incidents to justify Arctic militarization; attribution of the network moderate. | C4 |
+| S-3 | 11–13 JAN | Mariner/aviator reports of GPS loss along Finnmark | Geotagged user reports corroborate the jamming footprint and timeline (F-1, M-4); some aggregated/recycled. | C2 |
+| S-4 | 13 JAN | Open-source-analyst threads correlating GS Pomor track to fault sites | Independent enthusiasts publishing AIS-gap timelines; useful but unverified and prone to over-claiming. | D3 |
+
+## 5. NGO / Think-Tank / Academic Assessment
+
+| # | Date | Assessment (summary) | Source | Grade |
+|---|------|----------------------|--------|-------|
+| T-1 | 13 JAN | "Four subsea incidents in nine days exceeds the baseline accident rate for the region, but coincidence cannot be ruled out for any single event." (Captures the attribution ambiguity.) | Seabed-security research institute | A2 |
+| T-2 | 12 JAN | "Russia's deep-sea research directorate has the demonstrated capability to locate and interfere with seabed cables; capability is not the same as proven intent." | Naval/maritime studies center | A2 |
+| T-3 | 13 JAN | "CUI vulnerability assessment: redundant cable pairs mask risk — losing one fiber of a pair removes resilience and raises the stakes of a second cut." | Critical-infrastructure think tank | B2 |
+| T-4 | 12 JAN | "Shadow-fleet vessels increasingly implicated in seabed incidents worldwide; flag-of-convenience structures complicate jurisdiction and attribution." | Maritime-affairs think tank | B2 |
+| T-5 | 13 JAN | "Svalbard's connectivity and SvalSat ground-link dependence make the archipelago a high-leverage, low-attribution target." | Polar/Arctic studies academic | B2 |
+
+## 6. OSINT Implications (for the analyst)
+
+- OSINT **supports** but does not confirm a deliberate, state-directed campaign: vessel proximity, AIS gaps, AIS spoofing, and the above-baseline incident rate (M-1/M-2/M-3/M-5, I-1/I-2/I-3, T-1) are suggestive, while shadow-fleet structures and accident-plausible mechanisms (anchor drag) leave a deniability seam open (T-4, P-4/P-6).
+- Imagery (I-2, I-3) places a Pomor-profile vessel in survey/ROV-capable configuration and an AIS-dark contact near a corridor — the closest open-source approach to a deliberate-act indicator, still short of attribution.
+- The information environment shows **coordinated inorganic amplification** of two competing deniability narratives — "accident" (S-1) and "NATO false flag" (S-2) — designed to raise the evidentiary bar; handle PA/OIE accordingly and do not amplify either frame.
+- M-5 / I-4 (GS Ladoga toward the Bear Island Gap area) is the most operationally time-sensitive item and should be wired directly to the next-target PIR and the associated decision point.
+- All graded items feed the I&W matrix and NAI set (`02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md`, `13_CCIRs.md`, `15_Event_Template_NAI_Matrix.xlsx`); none, on its own, meets the threshold for a confirmed or attributable report.

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/01_Strategic_Context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 01 — STRATEGIC CONTEXT
+
+**Product type:** USCENTCOM J5 compilation of national and theater strategic guidance excerpts. **From:** USCENTCOM J5 (Plans), Strategy Division. **DTG of issue:** 150300Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> Abridged extracts from national strategy, Department of Defense direction, and theater strategy as they bear on northeast Syria. Extracts are compiled for planning use and are not the controlling documents.
+
+## 1. National Security Strategy (relevant excerpts)
+
+National strategy identifies the countering of Iranian malign influence across the region as an enduring objective, with specific reference to denying Iran a contiguous ground line of communication ("land bridge") from Iranian territory through Iraq and Syria toward the Mediterranean littoral. National strategy directs the prevention of the reconstitution of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the protection of gains achieved against it. National strategy emphasizes the use of partners and economy-of-force approaches, and the avoidance of large-scale, open-ended United States ground commitments.
+
+## 2. National Defense Strategy (relevant direction)
+
+Department strategy directs the imposition of cost on Iranian-backed consolidation in eastern Syria through partnered and irregular approaches, **without escalation to overt armed conflict** with the Syrian regime or with Iran. Department strategy designates the eastern Syria effort as a supporting effort within the broader theater campaign, to be resourced accordingly, and directs that the introduction of United States forces into ground combat in Syria is **not authorized** under this line of effort.
+
+## 3. National Military Strategy / CJCS direction (relevant direction)
+
+Military strategy directs combatant commands to develop options that achieve campaign objectives below the threshold of armed conflict, with explicit attention to authorities, attribution management, and escalation control. Support to vetted irregular forces conducting authorized unconventional warfare is to be conducted under Section 1202 (FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act); activities exceeding that authority are to be referred for separate authorization. All support to partner forces is conditioned on completion of human-rights (Leahy) vetting.
+
+## 4. Theater strategy and commander's strategic estimate (excerpts)
+
+The USCENTCOM theater strategy assesses the loss of partner-held terrain in the middle Euphrates valley as a reversal of counter-ISIS gains and as an enabler of Iranian land-bridge consolidation. The commander's strategic estimate assesses that an indigenous resistance — the Azadî Resistance Council (ARC) — retains latent capability in the Jazira but has been displaced and isolated from external resupply by recent Iranian-backed proxy action.
+
+The theater strategy sets the desired conditions as: a viable indigenous capability able to coerce and disrupt regime and Iranian-backed proxy activity in the Jazira; a stalled consolidation in the middle Euphrates valley; and a minimized United States advisory footprint maintained below the threshold of overt armed conflict. The estimate notes that apportioned forces for the eastern Syria supporting effort are limited, that intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and lift are shared theater assets prioritized against higher-priority requirements elsewhere in the area of responsibility, and that force closure for this line of effort is therefore time-phased and lift-dependent.
+
+## 5. Authorities summary (planning-relevant)
+
+- **Section 1202, FY2018 NDAA** — support to irregular forces, groups, or individuals conducting authorized unconventional warfare by United States special operations forces. Governing authority for this line of effort.
+
+- **Title 10 / Title 50 boundary** — activities exceeding Section 1202, including activities properly characterized as covert action, require separate Title 50 or interagency authorization. The characterization of specific activities is a determination required of the command.
+
+- **Leahy vetting** — provision of any assistance to partner units or individuals is conditioned on completion of human-rights vetting.
+
+- **Absence of host-nation consent** — no status-of-forces or host-nation agreement covers United States activity in Syrian sovereign territory; the legal predicate rests on national authorities.
+
+## 6. DIME integration
+
+**Diplomatic.** Regional coordination is constrained: a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally (Türkiye) opposes support to the ARC and denies northern access; host-nation consent is absent; cross-border access through Iraqi territory is tacit and politically reversible. Diplomatic effort is oriented on preserving Iraqi tolerance and managing allied friction.
+
+**Informational.** The regime, Iranian-backed elements, and the Russian presence sustain a contested information environment in which United States and partner activity is subject to disinformation and pre-emptive attribution narratives. Information effort is oriented on exposing the Iranian and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hand and countering disinformation, within deniability discipline.
+
+**Military.** The military contribution is an unconventional-warfare supporting effort executed through SOCCENT, by, with, and through the ARC, below the threshold of overt armed conflict, and deconflicted with Russian forces present in theater.
+
+**Economic.** Critical infrastructure in the operational environment — the Euphrates dams supplying power and water, and eastern hydrocarbon production — bears on the legitimacy and revenue of any actor controlling the valley and is a civil-vulnerability consideration.
+
+## 7. Strategic risk framing
+
+National and theater guidance accept the risk inherent in a partnered, deniable approach in a denied area, in exchange for avoiding a direct United States–regime or United States–Iran armed conflict. The strategic-risk emphasis is on attribution management, escalation control, and the human-rights legitimacy of the partner. Mission analysis admits no single right answer; the commander decides, grounded in doctrine.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 02 — REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY
+
+**Product type:** USPACOM J2 higher-headquarters intelligence background. **From:** USPACOM **DTG of issue:** 150400Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> This summary provides the higher-headquarters intelligence background and escalation history for the mission-analysis staff. Assessments are stated at confidence; attribution of the Iranian directing hand is a cross-source assessment, not an open-source finding.
+
+## 1. Strategic setting
+
+Northeast Syria has remained a contested seam since the territorial defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The Syrian regime, lacking the regular manpower to administer the eastern governorates, has come to rely on Iranian-backed proxy manpower to extend control. Iran's enduring strategic objective in the area is the securing of a contiguous ground line of communication — the "land bridge" — from Iranian territory through Iraq and Syria toward the Mediterranean littoral. The middle Euphrates valley is the decisive terrain for that line of communication, and partner-held ground in the Jazira has been the principal obstacle to its completion.
+
+## 2. Road to war — escalation arc (preceding 90 days)
+
+- **D-90 to D-60.** Iranian-backed proxy militias (principally Liwa al-Sadiq) reinforce in the western and middle Euphrates valley under cover of regime "counter-terrorism" framing. Advisory activity attributed to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Quds Force element (the Ansar Advisory Group) increases coordination among proxy formations.
+
+- **D-60 to D-30.** Proxy forces conduct probing actions against Azadî Resistance Council (ARC) forward positions and interdict secondary supply movements along route BADGER. Regime intelligence activity against the ARC underground in Hasakah and Qamishli intensifies.
+
+- **D-30 to D-7.** Proxy forces mass within indirect-fire range of the Tel Roj salient. Regional information channels pre-position an attribution narrative framing any escalation as a domestic counter-terrorism operation and accusing external powers of destabilization.
+
+- **D-Day (150600Z MAR 2026).** Iranian-backed proxy forces seize the Tel Roj junction, sever route BADGER — the ARC's principal external support corridor — and displace the Roj Brigades from forward positions in the Tel Roj pocket, isolating the guerrilla force from external resupply.
+
+## 3. Character of the offensive
+
+The consolidation is led by Iranian-backed proxy militias — principally Liwa al-Sadiq, reinforced, with elements of Saraya Khorasan — operating alongside but distinct from Syrian regime regular formations. The proxy character of the lead echelon is assessed with moderate confidence and resolves only by cross-reading signals and human reporting against the adversary order of battle (document 03); surface and open-source reporting attribute the action to regime regulars. The Ansar Advisory Group is assessed to provide command, enabling, and indirect-fire coordination; its hand is concealed to preserve Iranian deniability. Employment of proxies in the lead is assessed as a deliberate measure to keep Iranian direction below the threshold of attributable state action.
+
+## 4. Partner force — Azadî Resistance Council
+
+The ARC is a Kurdish-led umbrella movement with Arab tribal affiliates of variable reliability. It is organized consistent with a doctrinal resistance:
+
+- **Underground (Komel network).** Clandestine cells in the urban centers of Hasakah and Qamishli conducting intelligence, subversion, and early warning. Assessed penetrated by regime intelligence; communications security weak.
+
+- **Auxiliary (Hêlîn network).** A clandestine support element providing logistics, safe houses, movement assistance, and early warning to the guerrilla force.
+
+- **Guerrilla force (Roj Brigades).** The overt military arm, an estimated 2,500 fighters with limited heavy weapons, low ammunition stocks, and no organic sustainment independent of route BADGER.
+
+Partner cohesion is assessed as adequate at present but degrading. Absent restoration of resupply, the Roj Brigades are assessed at risk of culmination or fragmentation within the near term — the binding planning timeline for any external support.
+
+## 5. Population and terrain
+
+The Jazira and the middle Euphrates valley present an ethnic-mosaic human terrain of Kurdish, Arab tribal, and minority communities. Partner legitimacy and freedom of movement vary by district: strong in Kurdish-majority districts of Hasakah and Qamishli, contested in Arab-majority districts along the Euphrates, where the ARC is viewed with suspicion and the population is more susceptible to regime and proxy influence. Internally displaced concentrations in Hasakah governorate add civil density and complicate the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.
+
+## 6. Electronic and information environment
+
+Adversary electronic warfare — attributed to proxy and Iranian-advisory systems and to Russian-enabled capability resident in theater — degrades Global Positioning System reception and tactical communications across the Euphrates valley. The information environment is contested by regime, Iranian, and Russian narratives, including a pre-emptive attribution narrative directed at United States and partner activity.
+
+## 7. Residual ISIS threat
+
+ISIS remnant cells persist in the Badia desert and exploit security vacuums. Diversion of regime and proxy attention toward a resistance buildup is assessed as a condition that could enable localized ISIS resurgence, with attendant risk to lines of communication and to the broader counter-ISIS gains the campaign seeks to protect.
+
+## 8. External actors
+
+- **Russia.** Maintains presence and air-defense coverage from Hmeimim air base; coverage extends over the Euphrates valley. A deconfliction mechanism exists; Russia is not a coordinating partner.
+
+- **Türkiye.** Opposes the ARC, which Ankara assesses as linked to a designated terrorist organization, and denies cross-border access, overflight, and basing from the north.
+
+- **Iraq.** Has not granted explicit consent for cross-border movement; tolerates low-visibility movement through the Rabia/Yaroubiya and al-Walid–al-Tanf area crossings, reversible under Iranian-aligned political pressure.
+
+## 9. Assessment
+
+The seizure of the Tel Roj junction is assessed as a deliberate, Iranian-enabled step to complete the land-bridge consolidation and to collapse the only viable indigenous resistance before it can be reinforced. The dominant unknowns are Iranian intent and the proxy reinforcement timeline, partner cohesion under pressure, and the trafficability of any restored or alternate corridor. The window in which external support can preserve the partner is assessed as narrow.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/03_Adversary_OOB.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 03 — ADVERSARY ORDER OF BATTLE
+
+**Product type:** USCENTCOM J2 adversary order-of-battle assessment. **From:** USCENTCOM J2 (Iran Threat Network / Levant order-of-battle cell). **DTG of issue:** 150400Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> Composition, disposition, strength, and capability of regime, Iranian-backed proxy, and Iranian advisory elements in the area of interest. Confidence stated by line. Force designations are fictional and exercise-only.
+
+## 1. Command relationships (assessed)
+
+Nominal command runs through the Syrian regime Eastern Region Command. In practice, the consolidation's maneuver is assessed to be directed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Quds Force advisory element (Ansar Advisory Group) through the Iranian-backed proxy militias, with regime regulars providing a holding and administrative echelon. The arrangement preserves a regime "face" on the operation while Iranian direction is exercised through, and concealed behind, the proxies.
+
+## 2. Syrian regime forces (Eastern Region Command)
+
+| **Formation** | **Type** | **Est. strength** | **Disposition** | **Confidence** |
+|:---|----|----|----|----|
+| 9th Mechanized Brigade | Regular mechanized | ~1,800; understrength | Deir ez-Zor axis | Moderate |
+| Republican Guard detachment | Regular light | ~600 | Valley interior strongpoints | Moderate |
+| Military Intelligence Directorate (regional) | Security / intelligence | — | Hasakah, Qamishli, valley towns | Moderate |
+
+Regime regular formations are assessed as the holding and administrative echelon, dependent on proxy manpower for offensive reach. The Military Intelligence Directorate is assessed to maintain active penetration of the ARC underground and to run informant networks in the displaced-population centers.
+
+## 3. Iranian-backed proxy militias
+
+| **Element** | **Est. strength** | **Equipment** | **Role** | **Confidence** |
+|:---|----|----|----|----|
+| Liwa al-Sadiq (reinforced) | Reinforced brigade equivalent (~2,500–3,000) | Light infantry; technicals; 82mm/120mm mortars; multiple-rocket launchers; ATGM; man-portable air defense (limited) | Lead maneuver; seized and holds the Tel Roj junction | Moderate |
+| Saraya Khorasan | Battalion-plus (~700) | Light infantry; technicals; mortars | Supporting maneuver; line-of-communication security | Moderate |
+
+Proxy forces are assessed as proficient in dispersed light-infantry operations, indirect fire, and the interdiction of fixed routes and chokepoints. Sustainment flows from the Iraqi border along the consolidating ground line of communication. Proxy capability is assessed as sufficient to hold seized terrain and to interdict a restored corridor, but not to rapidly clear dispersed guerrillas across the wider Jazira without reinforcement.
+
+## 4. Iranian advisory element
+
+The **Ansar Advisory Group** (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Quds Force) is assessed, with moderate confidence, to provide command and control, enabling functions (logistics coordination, indirect-fire integration, intelligence), and advisory presence to the proxy militias. Advisory nodes are assessed to be co-located with proxy assembly areas in the middle Euphrates valley. The advisory hand is deliberately concealed; its presence is inferred from intercept patterns, advisory signatures, and the proxies' improved coordination rather than from direct or open-source observation. An Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps casualty or captured advisor is assessed as the event most likely to force overt attribution and Iranian retaliation.
+
+## 5. Electronic warfare and information operations
+
+Proxy and Iranian-advisory systems, augmented by Russian-enabled capability resident in theater, are assessed to degrade Global Positioning System reception and tactical communications across the Euphrates valley, with effects concentrated along the corridor approaches. Regime, Iranian, and Russian information activity sustains a contested narrative environment and a pre-emptive attribution narrative framing the offensive as a domestic counter-terrorism operation.
+
+## 6. Russian presence (context — not adversary, deconfliction only)
+
+Russian Aerospace Forces operate from Hmeimim air base with air-defense coverage extending over the Euphrates valley. Russian forces are addressed through the deconfliction mechanism and are not assessed as a combatant against United States or partner forces; Russian air-defense posture nonetheless constrains United States air and aviation activity.
+
+## 7. Assessment — capabilities versus intent
+
+- **Capabilities (moderate-to-high confidence).** Sufficient to hold the Tel Roj junction, interdict fixed corridors with indirect fire, and contest a restored line of communication. No assessed capability to threaten the United States homeland or to conduct sustained operations beyond the valley without reinforcement.
+
+- **Intent (low confidence — dominant unknown).** The depth and tempo of further consolidation and the proxy reinforcement timeline are not established. Iranian willingness to risk overt attribution is assessed as low; the proxy lead and concealed advisory hand are assessed as deliberate deniability measures.
+
+- **Center-of-gravity framing (intelligence view).** The adversary source of strength is the Iranian-backed proxy force enabled by the advisory element; its critical requirement is the secured ground line of communication; its critical vulnerability is the deniability on which continued employment depends. Exposure of the Iranian hand is assessed to raise the political cost of continued consolidation.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/04_Coalition_OOB.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 04 — COALITION AND FRIENDLY ORDER OF BATTLE
+
+**Product type:** USCENTCOM J3 / J5 friendly forces, apportionment, and availability assessment, in coordination with SOCCENT. **DTG of issue:** 150400Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> United States and partner forces, apportionment, availability, and sustainment posture. Force designations are fictional and exercise-only. The relationship to the partner is by, with, and through; the partner is not under United States command.
+
+## 1. United States special operations forces (apportioned)
+
+| **Element** | **Status** | **Strength / capability** | **Notes** |
+|:---|----|----|----|
+| Special Operations Task Force – Levant (SOTF-L) | Headquarters apportioned to the eastern Syria supporting effort | Task-force C2 under SOCCENT | Command and control for the unconventional-warfare line of effort |
+| ODA-detachments (further detachments on order) | Up to six apportioned; initial closure two to three | ~12 personnel per detachment; advise/assist/enable | Advisory elements for partner organization |
+| Theater intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance | Shared; allocated by theater priority | Remotely piloted ISR; signals support | Not dedicated; subject to higher-priority tasking elsewhere in the AOR |
+| Theater airlift / rotary aviation (infiltration, resupply, recovery) | Shared; time-phased | Fixed- and rotary-wing | Force closure dependent on lift availability |
+| Joint personnel-recovery element | On order | Recovery planning and execution | Coverage is a precondition for infiltration |
+
+**Apportionment-versus-availability.** Although up to six advisory detachments are apportioned to the line of effort, initial force closure is constrained by shared theater lift to two or three detachments; full closure is time-phased against higher-priority theater requirements. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and aviation are shared theater assets, not dedicated. The delta between what is apportioned and what can actually be closed and sustained in the near term is a planning factor, not a given.
+
+## 2. Advisory capacity
+
+Available advisory detachments can organize and partner with only a fraction of the Roj Brigades at any one time. Advisory capacity — not partner manpower — is assessed as the limiting factor in generating partner capability; prioritization of vetted, cohesive partner elements is therefore required.
+
+## 3. Partner force (supported)
+
+| **Element** | **Strength** | **Component** | **Notes** |
+|:---|----|----|----|
+| Azadî Resistance Council (ARC) | Umbrella | Political | Kurdish-led; Arab tribal affiliates of variable reliability |
+| Roj Brigades | est. 2,500 | Guerrilla | Limited heavy weapons; low ammunition; no organic sustainment beyond route BADGER |
+| Komel network | — | Underground | Clandestine; Hasakah, Qamishli; assessed penetrated |
+| Hêlîn network | — | Auxiliary | Logistics, safe houses, early warning |
+
+Partner forces are not under United States command; the relationship is by, with, and through. Provision of support is conditioned on completion of human-rights (Leahy) vetting. Partner sustainment, communications security, and counterintelligence are assessed as deficient and are dependencies for any partnered operation.
+
+## 4. Coalition and access posture
+
+No formal multinational coalition is constituted for this line of effort. A North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally (Türkiye) opposes support to the ARC and denies northern access, overflight, and basing. Cross-border sustainment depends on tacit Iraqi tolerance of movement through the Rabia/Yaroubiya and al-Walid–al-Tanf area crossings. Russian forces present in theater require deconfliction of all air and aviation activity through the established mechanism. There are no assigned partner nations contributing forces to the advisory effort.
+
+## 5. Sustainment posture
+
+Sustainment of partner forces in the Tel Roj pocket is constrained by the severance of route BADGER. Throughput on any restored or alternate corridor is capped by corridor capacity and lift. Fuel, ammunition, and medical sustainment over distance are assessed as the binding feasibility factors for any support to the partner. Stockholding at the Iraqi border point of origin is not the constraint; movement through contested distance is.
+
+## 6. Command relationships
+
+USCENTCOM is supported combatant command for the line of effort. SOCCENT exercises theater special-operations command and control; SOTF-L is the executing task force. The partner is supported, not commanded. Personnel-recovery coordination and the joint personnel-recovery element answer to SOCCENT as a commit-decision input.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 05 — COUNTRY AND ACTOR FACT SHEET
+
+**Product type:** USCENTCOM J2 / J5 reference data on relevant states and actors. **DTG of issue:** 150400Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> Reference data on the states and non-state actors relevant to the operational environment. Entities and personalities are fictional and exercise-only; geography and the regional actor set are at open-source level.
+
+## Syria (operating environment / adversary state)
+
+- **Governance.** Central regime with contested control; eastern governorates only partially under effective regime administration. The Eastern Region Command exercises regime military authority in the area of interest.
+
+- **Military.** Regular forces are understrength in the east and dependent on Iranian-backed proxy manpower for offensive reach. Regime intelligence (Military Intelligence Directorate) is active against the resistance underground.
+
+- **Legal posture toward US activity.** No status-of-forces or host-nation agreement; Syrian consent for United States presence does not exist. The legal predicate for any United States activity rests on national authorities.
+
+- **Interests.** Restore administration of the east; recover hydrocarbon and dam revenue; deny external support to the resistance.
+
+## Iran (proxy sponsor)
+
+- **Strategic interest.** A contiguous ground line of communication ("land bridge") through Iraq and Syria toward the Mediterranean; eastern Syria is decisive terrain for it.
+
+- **Instrument.** Iranian-backed Shia militias (Liwa al-Sadiq, Saraya Khorasan) advised and enabled by an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Quds Force element (the Ansar Advisory Group).
+
+- **Posture.** Consolidation through deniable proxies; concealment of the advisory hand; avoidance of overt attribution and direct United States–Iran confrontation.
+
+- **Escalation sensitivity.** An Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps casualty or captured advisor is assessed as the event most likely to force overt attribution and regional retaliation.
+
+## Azadî Resistance Council (partner — non-state)
+
+- **Composition.** Kurdish-led umbrella with Arab tribal affiliates of variable reliability; underground (Komel network), auxiliary (Hêlîn network), and guerrilla force (Roj Brigades, est. 2,500).
+
+- **Leadership (fictional).** Political chairman Azad Hesso; guerrilla commander "Şiyar Qamişlo" (nom de guerre).
+
+- **Legitimacy.** Strong in Kurdish-majority districts of Hasakah and Qamishli; contested in Arab-majority districts along the Euphrates.
+
+- **Aims.** Defense of the Jazira; resistance to regime and Iranian-backed consolidation; preservation of autonomy.
+
+- **Vulnerabilities.** Severed external resupply; weak communications security and counterintelligence; assessed regime-intelligence penetration of the underground.
+
+## Türkiye (NATO ally)
+
+- **Position.** Opposes external support to the ARC, which Ankara assesses as linked to a designated terrorist organization.
+
+- **Effect on planning.** Denies cross-border access, overflight, and basing from the north; raises the political cost of any northern line of support. As a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, an ally rupture is to be avoided.
+
+## Iraq (cross-border state)
+
+- **Position.** Does not grant explicit consent for cross-border military movement supporting operations in Syria; tolerates low-visibility movement through the Rabia/Yaroubiya and al-Walid–al-Tanf area crossings.
+
+- **Sensitivity.** Tolerance is tacit and politically reversible, sensitive to visibility and to Iranian-aligned political pressure within Iraq.
+
+## Russia (external military actor)
+
+- **Presence.** Russian Aerospace Forces operate from Hmeimim air base with air-defense coverage extending over the Euphrates valley.
+
+- **Mechanism.** A deconfliction mechanism exists between United States and Russian forces; Russia is not a coordinating partner. Interaction is limited to deconfliction.
+
+- **Effect on planning.** Air-defense coverage constrains United States air and aviation activity; Russian intent toward United States infiltration is an open question.
+
+## Non-state / residual threat — ISIS remnant
+
+- **Status.** Remnant cells in the Badia desert exploiting security vacuums. A resistance buildup that diverts regime and proxy attention is assessed as a condition enabling localized resurgence.
+
+## Civil and infrastructure overlay
+
+- **Population.** Ethnic-mosaic human terrain (Kurdish, Arab tribal, minority communities); internally displaced concentrations in Hasakah governorate.
+
+- **Critical infrastructure.** Euphrates dams (regional power and water); the Tellak gas field and associated eastern hydrocarbon production; the M4 highway as the principal east–west ground artery. Control of dams and hydrocarbon nodes confers economic and legitimacy advantage and constitutes a civil-vulnerability consideration.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/06_Critical_Geography.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 06 — CRITICAL GEOGRAPHY
+
+**Product type:** USCENTCOM J2 (Geospatial) / J4 terrain and infrastructure analysis. **DTG of issue:** 150400Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> Terrain, lines of communication, chokepoints, infrastructure, and climatology bearing on infiltration, sustainment, and recovery. Place names are at open-source level; the named corridor (BADGER/SABER) and the Tel Roj pocket are fictional and exercise-only.
+
+## 1. Operational area
+
+The area of interest comprises the Jazira (Hasakah governorate) and the middle Euphrates valley (eastern Deir ez-Zor governorate), bounded by the Iraqi border to the east and southeast, Turkish territory to the north, and the Badia desert to the south. Key population centers are Hasakah, Qamishli, and Deir ez-Zor. Dominant natural features are the Euphrates and Khabur rivers and the Jebel Abdul Aziz ridge.
+
+## 2. Observation, avenues, key terrain, obstacles, cover (OAKOC summary)
+
+- **Observation and fields of fire.** Open desert and river-valley terrain afford long fields of observation along improved routes and crossing sites; broken ground near Jebel Abdul Aziz and urban terrain in Hasakah/Qamishli offer concealment for the underground and auxiliary.
+
+- **Avenues of approach.** The eastern and southeastern border approaches (route BADGER, route SABER) are the feasible external avenues; the northern approach is closed by Turkish opposition.
+
+- **Key terrain.** The Tel Roj junction (controls route BADGER); the Euphrates dams and hydrocarbon nodes (economic/legitimacy value); the border crossings (control external access).
+
+- **Obstacles.** The Euphrates and Khabur rivers; mined and fortified chokepoints; adversary indirect-fire coverage of fixed routes; degraded position, navigation, and timing from electronic warfare.
+
+- **Cover and concealment.** Urban terrain and the auxiliary network afford concealment; open desert on route SABER affords little.
+
+## 3. Lines of communication
+
+**Route BADGER (severed).** Principal external support corridor for the Tel Roj pocket: from the Iraqi border vicinity the Rabia/Yaroubiya crossing, southwest along secondary roads to the Tel Roj junction, into the pocket. Interdicted at the Tel Roj junction by Iranian-backed proxy action on 150600Z MAR 2026. The junction is the binding chokepoint; while held by hostile forces, the corridor is closed to sustained movement. Shortest route; lowest sustainment leg; highest fixed-chokepoint interdiction risk.
+
+**Route SABER (alternate).** Longer alternate offsetting south through the desert margin from the al-Walid–al-Tanf area crossing, avoiding the Tel Roj junction but crossing open terrain under potential observation and within range of proxy indirect fire. Trades a fixed-chokepoint interdiction risk for exposure across distance and a longer, more lift-intensive sustainment leg.
+
+**M4 highway.** Principal east–west paved artery; contested control; unsuitable as a clandestine support route.
+
+## 4. Chokepoints and crossing sites
+
+| **Node** | **Function** | **Status / risk** |
+|:---|----|----|
+| Tel Roj junction | Route BADGER chokepoint | Held by proxy forces; closed |
+| Route SABER desert crossings | Alternate corridor crossing sites | Open terrain; observation/indirect-fire risk |
+| Rabia/Yaroubiya crossing | Iraq border entry (BADGER) | Tacit Iraqi tolerance; reversible |
+| al-Walid–al-Tanf area crossing | Iraq border entry (SABER) | Tacit Iraqi tolerance; reversible |
+
+Trafficability of any corridor is contingent on the status of these nodes and on the tolerance of Iraqi authorities for movement through the border crossings.
+
+## 5. Sustainment geography
+
+No secure overland line of communication into the Tel Roj pocket exists following the severance of route BADGER. Sustainment of a force in the pocket must traverse distance from the Iraqi border under interdiction threat; throughput is capped by corridor capacity and by available lift, not by stockholding at the point of origin. The absence of northern access (Turkish opposition) removes the shortest potential line of support and forces reliance on the longer eastern and southeastern approaches. Aerial resupply and recovery transit Russian air-defense coverage and require deconfliction.
+
+## 6. Critical infrastructure
+
+- **Euphrates dams.** Regional power and water; control confers legitimacy and revenue; civil-vulnerability node.
+
+- **Tellak gas field and eastern oil fields.** Hydrocarbon revenue; objectives of the consolidation.
+
+- **M4 highway.** Principal east–west artery; contested.
+
+## 7. Climatology and environment
+
+March conditions: mild daytime temperatures, cold nights favorable to clandestine night movement; intermittent rain and periodic dust events reducing trafficability on unimproved desert tracks and degrading aerial observation and resupply. Reduced-illumination periods favor clandestine movement. Spring conditions are transitional; off-route surface movement is weather-dependent.
+
+## 8. Geographic implications for planning
+
+The corridor decision (route BADGER versus route SABER) is the decisive geographic problem and gates feasibility. The closure of the northern approach concentrates all external support on two contested eastern/southeastern corridors, each with distinct risk. Sustainment over distance, not stockholding, is the binding constraint, and all aerial activity is conditioned by Russian air-defense coverage and the deconfliction mechanism.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/07_CJCS_EXORD_md_docx.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 07 — CJCS EXECUTE ORDER
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+PRECEDENCE: IMMEDIATE
+
+DTG: 150300Z MAR 2026
+
+FM: CJCS WASHINGTON DC
+
+TO: USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
+
+INFO: SECDEF WASHINGTON DC / JOINT STAFF J3 WASHINGTON DC / USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL /
+
+DEPT OF STATE WASHINGTON DC (POLAD) / USEUCOM (DECONFLICTION, INFO)
+
+EXORD SERIAL: JS EXORD 26-0337 (JAGGED ANVIL)
+
+MSGID: EXORD/JOINT STAFF/JAGGED ANVIL//
+
+SUBJ: EXECUTE ORDER TO INITIATE UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE SUPPORT — EASTERN SYRIA
+
+REF: A. SECDEF DECISION MEMO (UW SUPPORT, EASTERN SYRIA), 142000Z MAR 2026
+
+B. SECTION 1202, FY2018 NDAA
+
+C. USCENTCOM THEATER CAMPAIGN PLAN (EXTRACT)
+
+D. NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY / NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY (EXTRACTS)
+
+E. US-RUSSIA DECONFLICTION MEMORANDUM (SYRIA), CURRENT EDITION
+
+## 1. SITUATION
+
+1.A. **General.** Iranian-backed proxy forces have conducted a consolidation offensive in the middle Euphrates valley, seized the Tel Roj junction, and severed route BADGER, the principal external support corridor to the indigenous resistance (Azadî Resistance Council), isolating the partner guerrilla force (Roj Brigades) from resupply. The action is assessed as a deliberate, Iranian-enabled step to complete the Iranian ground line of communication and to collapse the resistance before it can be reinforced.
+
+1.B. **Enemy.** Iranian-backed proxy militias, advised by an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Quds Force element, leading the consolidation under regime cover, employing deniable proxy maneuver, indirect fire, electronic warfare, and information operations.
+
+1.C. **Friendly.** The Azadî Resistance Council retains latent capability but is displaced and isolated. United States support is to be provided by, with, and through the partner. SOCCENT is the theater special-operations command for execution.
+
+1.D. **Authorities.** Reference B (Section 1202) provides authority to support irregular forces conducting authorized unconventional warfare. No status-of-forces or host-nation agreement covers United States activity in Syrian sovereign territory; the legal predicate rests on national authorities per references A and B.
+
+## 2. MISSION
+
+When directed, USCENTCOM initiates unconventional-warfare support to the Azadî Resistance Council in eastern Syria, by, with, and through the partner and below the threshold of overt armed conflict, to disrupt Iranian-backed proxy consolidation of the middle Euphrates valley and preserve a viable partner capability, in order to deny completion of the Iranian ground line of communication.
+
+## 3. EXECUTION
+
+3.A. **Commander's intent (national).** The purpose is to deny Iranian land-bridge consolidation and preserve a viable indigenous capability in the Jazira at minimized United States exposure and below the threshold of overt armed conflict. The end state is an Azadî Resistance Council able to coerce and disrupt regime and Iranian-backed proxy activity, a stalled consolidation in the middle Euphrates valley, and a minimized United States advisory footprint. Acceptable risk is weighted toward preserving deniability and avoiding direct United States–regime or United States–Iran armed conflict.
+
+3.B. **Concept (national).** A phased unconventional-warfare effort: prepare and vet the partner; re-establish a sustainable line of support; organize and enable the guerrilla force to disrupt the consolidation. The supporting effort is resourced as economy-of-force within the theater campaign.
+
+3.C. **Tasks to USCENTCOM.**
+
+- 3.C.1. Organize, advise, and support the Azadî Resistance Council, and prepare to execute unconventional-warfare support on order.
+
+- 3.C.2. Conduct human-rights (Leahy) vetting of partner-force units and individuals prior to the provision of assistance.
+
+- 3.C.3. Deconflict all operations with Russian forces in theater in accordance with reference E.
+
+- 3.C.4. Plan and prepare to sustain the partner force; identify and report force, lift, and sustainment requirements and shortfalls.
+
+- 3.C.5. Establish personnel-recovery arrangements for United States personnel operating in the denied area.
+
+- 3.C.6. Submit the USCENTCOM mission analysis, commander's feasibility assessment, and nominated commander's critical information requirements prior to execution.
+
+- 3.C.7. Coordinate with the Department of State and the interagency on access, attribution management, and the Title 10 / Title 50 boundary.
+
+3.D. **Coordinating instructions.**
+
+- 3.D.1. United States forces are not authorized to conduct ground combat operations in Syria. The United States role is limited to advise, assist, and enable, by, with, and through the partner.
+
+- 3.D.2. Operations will not cross the threshold of overt United States–Syria armed conflict. Unilateral kinetic strikes against regime forces are not authorized absent separate national authorization.
+
+- 3.D.3. All activity will be conducted within the scope of reference B. Activities exceeding that scope, including any activity properly characterized as covert action, will be referred for separate authorization.
+
+- 3.D.4. Provision of assistance is conditioned on completion of Leahy vetting.
+
+- 3.D.5. Do not employ basing, overflight, or access denied by Türkiye.
+
+- 3.D.6. Maintain deniability discipline consistent with the below-threshold posture.
+
+## 4. ADMINISTRATION AND LOGISTICS
+
+4.A. Sustainment of partner forces is a USCENTCOM responsibility within apportioned resources; throughput is constrained by corridor capacity and shared theater lift. Report shortfalls. 4.B. The legal basis for activity rests on national authorities under references A and B; no host-nation agreement applies.
+
+## 5. COMMAND AND SIGNAL
+
+5.A. USCENTCOM is supported combatant command for this line of effort. USSOCOM provides forces as apportioned. SOCCENT exercises theater special-operations command and control. 5.B. Report mission analysis, feasibility assessment, commander's critical information requirements, and personnel-recovery readiness to the Joint Staff J3. 5.C. This order is effective for planning on receipt; execution on separate order.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/10_JIPOE_Brief_md_docx.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 10 — JOINT INTELLIGENCE PREPARATION OF THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT (JIPOE) BRIEF
+
+**Product type:** USCENTCOM J2 / SOCCENT J2 executive JIPOE brief. **From:** USCENTCOM J2, with SOCCENT J2 support. **DTG of issue:** 150400Z MAR 2026. **Method reference:** Joint Publication 2-01.3 (Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment). **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> This brief frames the operational environment, evaluates the threat, and states the intelligence gaps for the mission-analysis staff. It presents assessments at stated confidence and competing adversary courses of action to drive collection; it does not assert finished findings on Iranian direction, which require fusion and collection to confirm.
+
+## Title
+
+Operation JAGGED ANVIL — JIPOE Brief. Area of responsibility: USCENTCOM. Joint operational area: the Jazira (Hasakah governorate) and the middle Euphrates valley (eastern Deir ez-Zor governorate), northeast Syria. Briefing date: 15 March 2026.
+
+## Step 1 — Define the operational environment
+
+**Joint operational area.** The Jazira and the middle Euphrates valley, bounded by the Iraqi border to the east and southeast, Turkish territory to the north, and the Badia desert to the south. Decisive movement nodes are the Tel Roj junction (route BADGER), the desert crossing sites of route SABER, and the Rabia/Yaroubiya and al-Walid–al-Tanf area border crossings. The Tel Roj pocket — the displaced enclave of the Azadî Resistance Council (ARC) — sits at the western end of route BADGER.
+
+**Area of interest.** The wider corridor extending east into Iraq's western governorates (the proxy and Iranian logistics approach toward the border), north to the Turkish frontier (the constrained approach), and west along the Euphrates to the regime and Russian centers of gravity at and beyond Deir ez-Zor. The Iranian ground line of communication ("land bridge") transits this area of interest from the Iraqi border toward the western interior.
+
+**Defining characteristics.** A denied operational environment inside Syrian sovereign territory, without host-nation consent, under partial Russian air-defense coverage; an active proxy consolidation that has severed the partner's only external support corridor; an ethnic-mosaic human terrain of variable permissiveness; a contested information environment; degraded position, navigation, and timing from adversary electronic warfare; and a residual ISIS threat in the desert margins. No overt United States–Syria armed conflict is in progress, and the central planning condition is the requirement to keep it that way while enabling the partner.
+
+## Step 2 — Describe the impact of the operational environment (PMESII-PT)
+
+- **Political (P).** The Syrian regime claims sovereignty over terrain it does not fully administer; the Eastern Region Command exercises regime authority in the area of interest. No status-of-forces or host-nation agreement covers United States activity; the legal predicate rests on national authorities. A North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally (Türkiye) opposes the ARC and denies northern access; Iraq tolerates only low-visibility cross-border movement, reversible under Iranian-aligned political pressure.
+
+- **Military (M).** The lead echelon of the consolidation is Iranian-backed proxy militias (Liwa al-Sadiq, Saraya Khorasan), distinct from regime regulars, advised by an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–Quds Force element (the Ansar Advisory Group). Regime regulars (9th Mechanized Brigade; a Republican Guard detachment) constitute the holding echelon. The ARC fields a guerrilla force (Roj Brigades, estimated 2,500) with an underground (Komel) and auxiliary (Hêlîn) network.
+
+- **Economic (E).** The valley economy rests on hydrocarbon production (the Tellak gas field and eastern oil fields) and on the Euphrates dams supplying regional power and water; control of these nodes confers revenue and legitimacy on the controlling actor and is an object of the consolidation.
+
+- **Social (S).** Kurdish, Arab tribal, and minority communities make partner legitimacy variable by district; Arab-majority districts along the Euphrates are less permissive to the Kurdish-led ARC. Internally displaced concentrations in Hasakah governorate add civil density and complicate combatant/non-combatant distinction.
+
+- **Information (I).** Regime, Iranian, and Russian narratives contest the information environment, including a pre-emptive attribution narrative framing the fighting as a domestic counter-terrorism operation and accusing external powers of destabilization. Open-source reporting attributes the offensive to regime regulars, not to the proxy lead.
+
+- **Infrastructure (I).** The Euphrates dams, hydrocarbon nodes, and the M4 highway are the critical infrastructure of the valley; all are contested and are civil-vulnerability considerations.
+
+- **Physical environment (PE).** March: mild days, cold nights favorable to clandestine movement, intermittent rain and dust reducing trafficability on unimproved tracks and degrading aerial observation and resupply; a transitional spring pattern follows.
+
+- **Time (T).** The binding timeline is the assessed risk that the Roj Brigades culminate or fragment before external support is restored. Corridor re-establishment is the pacing factor for any support.
+
+## Step 3 — Evaluate the threat
+
+Applying the capabilities-versus-intent distinction (Sherman Kent):
+
+- **Capabilities (assessed with moderate-to-high confidence).** Proxy militias field light infantry, technical-mounted mobile elements, mortars and rocket artillery, and man-portable systems sufficient to hold seized terrain and interdict fixed corridors. Regime regulars provide armor and a holding capability. Adversary electronic warfare — proxy and Iranian-advisory systems augmented by Russian-enabled capability in theater — degrades the Global Positioning System and tactical communications across the valley. Regime intelligence and security services, including the Military Intelligence Directorate, are assessed to actively penetrate the ARC underground; partner counterintelligence is weak.
+
+- **Intent (assessed with low confidence — the dominant unknown).** The depth and tempo of further consolidation, and the reinforcement timeline of proxy forces into the middle Euphrates valley, are not established. Iranian willingness to risk overt attribution of the directing hand is assessed as low; the proxy lead is assessed as a deliberate deniability measure, and the Ansar Advisory Group's hand is concealed. The proxy character of the lead echelon and the advisory presence resolve only through the cross-reading of signals and human reporting against the adversary order of battle (document 03), not from surface or open-source reporting.
+
+- **Center-of-gravity framing (intelligence view, offered for staff use).** The adversary source of strength in the consolidation is assessed to be the Iranian-backed proxy force enabled by the advisory element; its critical requirement is the secured ground line of communication, and its critical vulnerability is the deniability on which continued employment depends. The staff will develop the operational implications.
+
+## Step 4 — Threat courses of action (competing; not yet confirmed)
+
+**Most likely.** Incremental consolidation along the valley: hold the Tel Roj junction to keep route BADGER closed; rely on proxy forces and indirect fire to interdict any restored corridor; preserve deniability and avoid actions that force overt attribution. *Indicators:* sustained proxy holding force at the junction; indirect-fire registration along corridor approaches; continued regime-attribution messaging; no surge of proxy reinforcement.
+
+**Most dangerous.** Accelerated reinforcement of proxy forces into the middle Euphrates valley to collapse the Tel Roj pocket before external support is restored, accepting elevated attribution risk. *Indicators:* new proxy assembly areas and convoy flow from the Iraqi border; Ansar Advisory Group nodes forward; massing within indirect-fire range of the pocket; degradation of ARC cohesion through penetration or coercion.
+
+**Branch — ISIS exploitation.** Diversion of regime and proxy attention toward the resistance enables localized ISIS resurgence from the Badia desert. *Indicators:* uptick in ISIS small-cell activity along the desert margins; attacks on lines of communication uncorrelated with the proxy offensive.
+
+The relative ranking of the most-likely and most-dangerous courses turns on Iranian intent and the proxy reinforcement timeline, which are the dominant unknowns.
+
+## Indications and warnings (collection focus)
+
+| **Indicator** | **Threat COA** | **Collection means (lead)** |
+|:---|----|----|
+| Proxy holding force / fortification at the Tel Roj junction | Most likely | ISR over NAI-1; partner (Hêlîn) reporting |
+| Indirect-fire registration along route BADGER/SABER approaches | Most likely | ISR; partner observation |
+| New proxy assembly areas; convoy flow from the Iraqi border | Most dangerous | ISR over NAI-5; regional tracking |
+| Ansar Advisory Group nodes co-located forward | Most dangerous | SIGINT cross-cue; HUMINT |
+| ARC cohesion / penetration indicators | Most dangerous | Partner liaison; counterintelligence indicators |
+| Russian air-defense posture change over the valley | (Friendly COA) | Deconfliction-channel behavior; ISR |
+| Iraqi crossing-point posture; political signaling | (Access decision) | Liaison; open-source |
+| ISIS small-cell activity, desert margins | Branch | ISR over NAI-6; partner reporting |
+
+## Intelligence gaps (nominated for command attention)
+
+- ARC cohesion and the extent of decisive regime-intelligence penetration through the buildup.
+
+- Iranian and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps intent and the proxy reinforcement timeline.
+
+- Trafficability and defensibility of route BADGER and route SABER for sustained resupply.
+
+- Whether Russia will treat United States infiltration as a deconfliction matter or a provocation.
+
+- Whether Iraqi authorities will tolerate or interdict cross-border sustainment.
+
+## Named areas of interest (nominated)
+
+- **NAI-1 / NAI-2** — Tel Roj junction (route BADGER chokepoint) and route SABER crossing sites: confirm trafficability and interdiction.
+
+- **NAI-5** — proxy assembly areas and Ansar Advisory Group nodes in the middle Euphrates valley: confirm reinforcement and the advisory hand.
+
+- **NAI-6** — Badia desert margins: confirm ISIS resurgence indicators.
+
+- **NAI-7** — Hasakah/Qamishli urban: regime-intelligence activity against the underground.
+
+- **NAI-8** — Euphrates valley airspace: Russian air-defense posture.
+
+## Confidence assessment
+
+High confidence in the physical, infrastructure, and human-terrain picture and in adversary capabilities. Low confidence in adversary intent, the proxy reinforcement timeline, partner cohesion and penetration, and corridor trafficability. The Iranian directing hand and the proxy lead are assessed at moderate confidence and rest on cross-source fusion, not on open-source or surface reporting.
+
+## Implications for the mission-analysis staff
+
+The staff should drive collection against the gaps above; treat corridor re-establishment as the decisive movement problem and assess route BADGER against route SABER; plan a combined partner command-and-control architecture resilient to electronic warfare; develop the auxiliary and underground networks for intelligence and clandestine logistics; account for shared, contested intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that cannot be assumed persistent; plan information activity that exposes the Iranian and advisory hand within deniability discipline; and surface the partner-penetration, escalation, and time risks. The operational answers are the staff's to develop; mission analysis admits no single right answer.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/11_Annexes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 11 — ANNEXES
+
+**Product type:** USCENTCOM staff annexes to the mission-analysis input packet. **DTG of issue:** 150400Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> Supporting annexes bearing on authorities, electromagnetic and information activities, personnel recovery, deconfliction, and time. Annexes summarize planning-relevant content; they are not the controlling instructions.
+
+## Annex A — Operational Law
+
+A.1. **Authority basis.** The legal basis for United States activity in eastern Syria rests on national authorities; no status-of-forces or host-nation agreement covers United States presence in Syrian sovereign territory, and Syrian consent does not exist.
+
+A.2. **Section 1202.** Support to irregular forces, groups, or individuals conducting authorized unconventional warfare by United States special operations forces is governed by Section 1202 (FY2018 NDAA). Support must be tied to authorized unconventional warfare and is subject to the conditions and reporting of that authority.
+
+A.3. **Title 10 / Title 50 boundary.** Activities exceeding the scope of Section 1202 — including activities properly characterized as covert action — require separate Title 50 or interagency authorization. The characterization of specific activities against that boundary is a determination required of the command and is to be coordinated with the interagency.
+
+A.4. **Leahy vetting.** Provision of any assistance to partner units or individuals is conditioned on completion of human-rights vetting. Assistance to an unvetted unit or individual is prohibited.
+
+A.5. **Use of force.** United States forces are not authorized to conduct ground combat. Self-defense is retained. Unilateral kinetic strikes against regime forces are not authorized absent separate national authorization. Operations will not cross the threshold of overt United States–Syria armed conflict.
+
+## Annex B — Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities
+
+B.1. **Threat.** Adversary electronic warfare (proxy, Iranian-advisory, and Russian-enabled) degrades Global Positioning System reception and tactical communications across the Euphrates valley, with effects concentrated along corridor approaches.
+
+B.2. **Friendly implications.** Command-and-control and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance architectures supporting the advisory effort must be planned for resilience to jamming and to position, navigation, and timing degradation, including alternate precision-navigation and low-probability-of-intercept communications.
+
+B.3. **Authority note.** Offensive cyberspace effects, if any, fall within the Title 10 / Title 50 boundary addressed in Annex A and require appropriate authorization.
+
+## Annex C — Information
+
+C.1. **Environment.** The information environment is contested by regime, Iranian, and Russian narratives, including a pre-emptive attribution narrative framing the fighting as a domestic counter-terrorism operation and accusing external powers of destabilization.
+
+C.2. **Approach.** Information activities are oriented on exposing Iranian and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps involvement and countering disinformation directed at the partner and the population, consistent with deniability discipline and the below-threshold posture. Information activity must not compromise the concealment of United States involvement where that concealment is required.
+
+## Annex D — Personnel Recovery
+
+D.1. **Risk setting.** Advisory elements will operate isolated in a denied area within Russian air-defense coverage, at risk of isolation, capture, or casualty.
+
+D.2. **Requirements.** Personnel-recovery and casualty-evacuation arrangements over distance, with pre-coordinated Russian deconfliction for recovery sorties, are a planning precondition for infiltration. Isolated-personnel guidance, authentication, and recovery contingencies are to be coordinated with the partner auxiliary (Hêlîn) network. Recovery is to be rehearsed from both candidate corridors.
+
+D.3. **Gate.** Confirmed personnel-recovery coverage is a no-go gate for the commit decision.
+
+## Annex E — Deconfliction
+
+E.1. **Mechanism.** All air and aviation activity is subject to deconfliction with Russian forces through the mechanism at reference E (document 07) prior to execution.
+
+E.2. **Assumption.** Continued functioning of the deconfliction mechanism is a planning assumption; its failure materially changes the feasibility of aerial infiltration, resupply, and recovery and would force reliance on ground means.
+
+## Annex F — Time and Climatology
+
+F.1. **Time.** STARTEX is 150600Z MAR 2026; the planning horizon is 90 days. The binding planning timeline is the assessed risk of partner culmination or fragmentation absent restored resupply in the near term.
+
+F.2. **Climatology.** March features cold nights favorable to clandestine movement, intermittent rain and dust reducing trafficability and aerial observation, and a transitional spring pattern thereafter. Reduced-illumination periods favor clandestine infiltration and resupply.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/12_CIPG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 12 — COMMANDER'S INITIAL PLANNING GUIDANCE (CIPG)
+
+**Product type:** Commander, USCENTCOM, initial planning guidance to the staff (per JP 5-0). **DTG of issue:** 150600Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> Initial guidance to focus mission analysis and the operational design. This guidance frames the problem and sets planning priorities; it does not pre-decide the analysis. Mission analysis admits no single right answer — the commander decides, grounded in doctrine.
+
+## 1. Operational design
+
+**Operational environment / current state.** Iranian-backed proxy forces, advised by an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps element under regime cover, have seized the Tel Roj junction, severed route BADGER, and isolated the only viable indigenous resistance. United States forces are constrained from ground combat, lack host-nation consent, operate under Russian air-defense coverage, and must avoid overt armed conflict.
+
+**Desired future state.** A vetted, organized, and sustained Azadî Resistance Council able to coerce and disrupt the consolidation; a stalled Iranian land-bridge consolidation; protected counter-ISIS gains; and a minimized United States footprint below the armed-conflict threshold.
+
+**Problem statement.** The problem is to enable an indigenous partner to disrupt Iranian-backed consolidation of the middle Euphrates valley — by, with, and through the partner, within Section 1202 authority, without host-nation consent, and below the threshold of overt armed conflict — before the partner culminates.
+
+**Operational approach (lines of effort).**
+
+- LOE 1 — **Partner readiness:** vet, organize, and advise the Roj Brigades and develop the underground and auxiliary networks.
+
+- LOE 2 — **Sustainable access:** re-establish a secure infiltration and resupply corridor; secure tacit Iraqi tolerance; establish personnel recovery.
+
+- LOE 3 — **Disrupt consolidation:** enable partner action to coerce and disrupt the proxy line of communication, exposing the Iranian hand within deniability discipline.
+
+- **Decisive condition:** reliable infiltration and sustainment of a vetted partner. Absent it, no approach is feasible.
+
+## 2. Initial commander's intent
+
+**Purpose:** deny completion of the Iranian ground line of communication and preserve a viable partner in the Jazira. **Method:** unconventional-warfare support, by, with, and through the Azadî Resistance Council, below the threshold of overt armed conflict. **End state:** the partner organized, vetted, and sustained to a viable guerrilla capability; consolidation disrupted; United States footprint minimized and below threshold. Weight risk acceptance toward preserving deniability and avoiding direct United States–regime or United States–Iran conflict.
+
+## 3. Planning guidance by joint function
+
+- **Command and control.** Establish a combined partner–task-force architecture resilient to electronic warfare; frame the by-with-through relationship clearly (the partner is supported, not commanded); fix the supported/supporting relationships with SOCCENT.
+
+- **Intelligence.** Make priority requirements of partner reliability and penetration, adversary intent and the proxy reinforcement timeline, and corridor trafficability; treat ISIS resurgence as a monitored named area of interest; do not assume persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance coverage.
+
+- **Fires.** No unilateral strikes on regime forces; fires are partner-enabled and constrained by the below-threshold restraint; plan counter-indirect-fire as a movement and partner problem.
+
+- **Movement and maneuver.** Treat corridor re-establishment as the decisive task; assess route BADGER against route SABER; plan infiltration consistent with Russian deconfliction.
+
+- **Protection.** Personnel recovery for advisors is a precondition for infiltration; protect the advisory footprint and deniability; address partner penetration through vetting and operations security.
+
+- **Sustainment.** Plan throughput against corridor capacity and lift, not stockholding; identify the binding sustainment shortfall and report it.
+
+- **Information.** Expose the Iranian and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hand and counter regime and Russian disinformation, within deniability discipline.
+
+## 4. Constraints and restraints (commander's emphasis)
+
+Must do: vet before assisting (Leahy); operate within Section 1202; deconflict with Russian forces. Cannot do: conduct United States ground combat; cross the threshold of overt armed conflict or strike regime forces unilaterally; use access Türkiye has denied.
+
+## 5. Risk guidance
+
+Treat as the priority risks: capture or loss of an advisor in the denied area (operational/strategic-recovery); regime-intelligence penetration of the partner (force); inadvertent escalation through disclosure or an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps casualty (escalation); and partner culmination before support arrives (time). Each is to be briefed with a mitigation. Surface the strategic risk of ISIS resurgence.
+
+## 6. Planning priorities and CCIR nomination
+
+Priorities, in order: (1) feasibility of infiltration and sustainment; (2) partner reliability and vetting; (3) the corridor decision; (4) personnel-recovery coverage; (5) deconfliction and cross-border access. Nominate commander's critical information requirements against partner cohesion, adversary intent and reinforcement, corridor status, Russian and Iraqi posture, and friendly readiness and recovery coverage. Identify the decision points the analysis must support, to include the commit-or-abort decision and the corridor-selection decision.
+
+## 7. Guidance on the mission-analysis brief
+
+Brief higher mission and intent, facts and assumptions, specified/implied/essential tasks, constraints and restraints, centers of gravity, risk, military objectives and evaluation criteria, commander's critical information requirements, the restated mission, and an initial force and sustainment assessment. Carry forward that there is no single right answer in mission analysis; present a sound, doctrinally grounded analysis and identify where commander's decisions are required.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C2_JAGGED_ANVIL/14_Running_Estimates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 14 — STAFF RUNNING ESTIMATES
+
+**Product type:** USCENTCOM staff pre–mission-analysis running estimates by the seven joint functions. **DTG of issue:** 150500Z MAR 2026. **Classification (synthetic):** UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E).
+
+> Functional running estimates as of STARTEX. Each estimate states the current situation, the principal capability or shortfall, and the staff estimate. Estimates are continuous and pre-decisional.
+
+## C2 (J6 / J3)
+
+**Situation.** Command of the line of effort runs USCENTCOM–SOCCENT–SOTF-L; the partner is supported, not commanded. Adversary electronic warfare degrades tactical communications and position, navigation, and timing across the valley. **Capability / shortfall.** A combined Azadî Resistance Council–SOTF-L architecture must be established and hardened against jamming; low-probability-of-intercept and alternate-navigation means are required. Partner communications security is weak. **Estimate.** Command and control is feasible but dependent on a resilient, low-signature architecture and on the by-with-through relationship being clearly framed. C2 resilience is a dependency, not a given.
+
+## Intelligence (J2)
+
+**Situation.** Priority gaps: partner cohesion and penetration; adversary intent and the proxy reinforcement timeline; corridor trafficability; Russian and Iraqi posture. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance is shared and contested by electronic warfare. **Capability / shortfall.** Persistent coverage of the corridor and proxy assembly areas cannot be assumed; collection must be requested and prioritized against the decisions it gates; partner-derived reporting (Hêlîn, Komel) is available but penetrated. **Estimate.** Significant ambiguity persists on adversary intent and partner reliability; collection must be focused on the commit and corridor decisions. Intelligence is a limiting factor on confidence, not a settled input.
+
+## Fires (J3 Fires)
+
+**Situation.** No unilateral strikes on regime forces are authorized; fires are partner-enabled and constrained by the below-threshold restraint. Adversary indirect fire (proxy mortars and rockets) threatens fixed corridors and crossing sites. **Capability / shortfall.** Friendly fires contribution is limited by design; counter-indirect-fire is principally a partner and movement problem; any United States fires require authorization above the line of effort. **Estimate.** Fires are a constrained, partner-mediated function; the principal fires concern is mitigating adversary indirect fire against the corridor.
+
+## Movement and Maneuver (J3)
+
+**Situation.** No secure overland line of communication into the Tel Roj pocket exists; route BADGER is severed at the Tel Roj junction; route SABER is longer and exposed. Infiltration depends on clandestine ground movement and aerial insertion within Russian air-defense coverage. **Capability / shortfall.** Corridor re-establishment is the decisive movement task; aerial means require Russian deconfliction; ground means are weather- and interdiction-dependent. **Estimate.** Movement and maneuver is the principal feasibility determinant; the corridor decision (BADGER vs. SABER) gates the operation.
+
+## Protection (J3 / Force Protection)
+
+**Situation.** Advisors will operate isolated in a denied area; regime intelligence penetrates the partner; the partner's counterintelligence is weak. **Capability / shortfall.** Personnel-recovery and casualty-evacuation coverage over distance is a precondition for infiltration; vetting, operations security, and compartmented support are required to protect advisors. **Estimate.** Risk to force is acceptable only with confirmed personnel-recovery coverage and partner vetting in place; protection is a commit-decision gate.
+
+## Sustainment (J4)
+
+**Situation.** Sustainment of the partner in the Tel Roj pocket must traverse distance under interdiction threat; throughput is capped by corridor capacity and lift, not stockholding. Available lift constrains initial advisory closure to two or three detachments. **Capability / shortfall.** Fuel, ammunition, and medical resupply over distance are the binding feasibility factors; full force closure is time-phased against higher-priority theater lift requirements. **Estimate.** Sustainment is the binding constraint on the achievable scale and tempo of support; the sustainment shortfall is to be reported to higher headquarters.
+
+## Information (J3 Information)
+
+**Situation.** The information environment is contested by regime, Iranian, and Russian narratives, including a pre-emptive attribution narrative. **Capability / shortfall.** Information activity can expose the Iranian and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hand and counter disinformation but is constrained by the requirement to preserve deniability of United States involvement. **Estimate.** Information activity supports the objective within tight deniability limits; messaging must not compromise concealment where concealment is required.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/01_Strategic_Context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 01 — STRATEGIC CONTEXT — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+## National framing
+
+The Southwest Pacific is a region of intensifying strategic competition conducted largely below the threshold of armed conflict. United States strategy in the region emphasizes the sovereignty and resilience of Pacific Island states, the primacy of regional partners, and the principle that assistance is offered in support of affected states rather than in pursuit of access. Disaster response has become a recognized arena of that competition: the state that delivers credible relief first, and is seen to respect the affected nation's sovereignty, accrues durable legitimacy and access.
+
+## The affected state in the competition
+
+The Republic of Vanuatu maintains relationships with the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and France, and has in recent years also accepted infrastructure investment and policing cooperation from the People's Republic of China. Vanuatu has historically balanced these relationships to preserve its own freedom of action. Vanuatu governance is presently fluid, and a parliamentary bloc favorable to closer alignment with the People's Republic of China is influential during the current period of political maneuvering.
+
+## The competitor's approach
+
+People's Republic of China relief and security elements were positioned to respond rapidly and to frame the People's Republic of China as the indispensable partner of the affected state. The competitor's advantage is presence and speed; its vulnerability is the perception, where it arises, that assistance is offered in pursuit of access rather than in the interest of the affected population. United States and partner advantage lies in scale, reach, and the legitimacy of a genuinely affected-state-led and multinational response.
+
+## Allied and coalition framing
+
+France, Australia, and New Zealand coordinate disaster response in the region through the FRANZ Arrangement, and each maintains standing relationships with Vanuatu. A United States contribution is expected to reinforce, not supplant, this regional architecture; a response that places Pacific and FRANZ partners forward carries greater legitimacy than a unilateral United States effort.
+
+## Strategic guidance bearing on the operation
+
+The intent at the national level is to relieve suffering, to reinforce the sovereignty and resilience of the affected state and the standing of its partners, and to deny the consolidation of competitor access — while keeping United States involvement below the threshold of armed conflict. Speed and legitimacy are to be pursued together. A response that is slow cedes the competition; a response that is heavy-handed or that proceeds without the affected state's consent undermines the very legitimacy it seeks to protect.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/02_Regional_Intel_Summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 02 — REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+## Disaster situation
+
+Severe Tropical Cyclone RUA struck Efate at 050600Z FEB 2026 as a Category-5 system and tracked across the central islands. Initial reporting indicates severe damage to Port Vila, including to the Bauerfield International Airport airfield surfaces and terminal and to the Lapetasi (Port Vila) wharf. Power, water, and fixed communications across Efate are largely inoperative. Casualty and displacement figures are incomplete; displacement is reported across Efate, the Shepherd Islands, and parts of Espiritu Santo, with the most acute needs assessed in water, emergency medical care, and shelter.
+
+## Political situation
+
+Vanuatu governance is in a period of instability associated with a motion-of-no-confidence cycle. A parliamentary grouping favorable to the People's Republic of China — referred to in open reporting as the Vanua Tasi bloc — is maneuvering for advantage and is assessed to favor channeling international assistance through People's Republic of China auspices. Reporting indicates that access for United States and allied responders to Port Vila and to certain affected districts has been subject to restriction; whether this reflects a deliberate, directed policy or administrative confusion in the disaster's aftermath is not confirmed and is assessed at moderate confidence to be at least partly deliberate.
+
+## Competitor presence
+
+A People's Republic of China relief flotilla, including the People's Liberation Army Navy hospital ship and surface escorts and a China Coast Guard cutter, is operating in Vanuatu waters. People's Republic of China police advisors associated with the standing policing-cooperation arrangement are reported ashore. People's Republic of China messaging emphasizes the speed and generosity of its assistance and characterizes a United States military role as militarized and potentially destabilizing.
+
+## Infrastructure and access
+
+The damage to Bauerfield and to the Port Vila wharf has reduced the throughput of the principal air and sea points of entry. The Chinese-built wharf at Luganville on Espiritu Santo is intact and is a significant logistics node; its control and use are reported to be a point of competition. Outer-island populations are difficult to reach and are assessed to be underserved by the relief that has so far arrived.
+
+## Assessment
+
+The instigating event is a natural disaster, not an armed attack; the operational problem is shaped by contested access, a fluid host-nation political situation, and an active competitor seeking legitimacy and access under humanitarian cover. The surface characterization of the People's Republic of China presence as purely humanitarian should be distinguished from its assessed strategic-access purpose.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/03_Adversary_OOB.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 03 — COMPETITOR PRESENCE AND ORDER OF BATTLE (PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA) — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+> This product describes the People's Republic of China presence as a factor in the operational environment. The People's Republic of China is not assessed to be conducting an armed operation; its posture is gray-zone and below the threshold of armed conflict.
+
+## Maritime presence
+
+- **PLA Navy hospital ship *Peace Ark* (Type 920, hull 866).** Operating off Efate; conducting and publicizing medical assistance.
+
+- **Surface escorts.** One Type 052D guided-missile destroyer and one Type 054A frigate assessed in company, providing presence and force protection for the flotilla.
+
+- **China Coast Guard cutter.** One large cutter present; affords a constabulary, non-naval face to the maritime presence and complicates characterization of any incident.
+
+## Ashore presence
+
+- **Ministry of Public Security police advisors.** A contingent associated with the standing People's Republic of China–Vanuatu policing-cooperation arrangement is reported in Port Vila; activity includes liaison with sympathetic Vanuatu officials and "order maintenance" framing.
+
+- **Infrastructure leverage.** People's Republic of China–financed and –constructed infrastructure in Vanuatu, including government buildings and roads on Efate and the wharf at Luganville on Espiritu Santo, affords both logistics utility and political leverage.
+
+## Information activity
+
+- Coordinated messaging portrays People's Republic of China assistance as fast, generous, and respectful of Vanuatu sovereignty, and portrays a United States military role as militarized and escalatory.
+
+- Messaging amplifies any United States or allied action that can be characterized as infringing Vanuatu sovereignty or as slow and conditional.
+
+## Assessed intent (moderate confidence)
+
+The People's Republic of China seeks to be seen as the indispensable relief provider, to deepen durable access and influence under humanitarian cover, and to keep its activity ambiguous and below any threshold that would justify a firm United States or allied response. People's Republic of China forces are assessed unlikely to physically obstruct United States or allied relief by force, but are likely to shadow, to compete for visibility, and to exploit any United States misstep.
+
+## Critical factors (for staff derivation)
+
+The relationship among the People's Republic of China's presence, its narrative, and the cooperation of a sympathetic host-nation bloc is left for the staff to analyze; this product does not nominate centers of gravity, information requirements, or decision points.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/04_Coalition_OOB.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 04 — COALITION / FRANZ AND UNITED STATES FORCE ORDER OF BATTLE — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+## FRANZ partners (France, Australia, New Zealand)
+
+The FRANZ Arrangement provides the standing mechanism through which France, Australia, and New Zealand coordinate disaster relief in the Pacific. Each partner maintains an independent relationship with Vanuatu and brings distinct capabilities.
+
+- **Australia.** A Canberra-class landing helicopter dock with embarked helicopters and a landing-craft capability, transport aircraft, and a standing security relationship with Vanuatu (2022 bilateral framework). Australia is the partner with the greatest regional lift and the strongest claim to lead-nation coordination.
+
+- **New Zealand.** A multi-role sealift and HADR vessel, maritime patrol aircraft, and engineering and medical detachments.
+
+- **France.** Forces armées de la Nouvelle-Calédonie based at Nouméa, approximately 500 kilometers distant, including a surface combatant, maritime patrol aircraft, and rotary-wing and engineering capability available on short notice from New Caledonia.
+
+## United States forces (apportioned; designators notional)
+
+Forces apportioned for planning are limited and close over time from distance.
+
+- **Joint Task Force CORAL (JTF-C) headquarters** (on establishment), subordinate to USINDOPACOM.
+
+- **Expeditionary maritime / amphibious component.** An amphibious ready group with embarked Marine air-ground task force elements (MEU pattern), affording sea-basing, rotary- and tilt-wing lift, landing craft, medical, and over-the-shore logistics.
+
+- **Air-mobility / logistics component.** Intra-theater airlift, aerial port and airfield-assessment teams, and engineer and medical detachments staging through Guam and regional bases.
+
+- **Shared theater enablers.** Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; sealift; and strategic lift are shared across competing theater priorities and are time-phased by priority. Force closure is paced by distance from Guam, Hawaii, and continental staging.
+
+## United States civilian lead
+
+- **USAID/BHA Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART).** The lead United States Government element for the disaster response; validates requirements and requests for Department of Defense assistance.
+
+- **United States Chief of Mission.** Diplomatic lead for host-nation engagement and consent.
+
+## Coordination considerations (for staff derivation)
+
+Command and coordination relationships among the United States, the FRANZ partners, the United Nations humanitarian system, and host-nation authorities are not directed by this product and are to be analyzed by the staff. Basing, staging, and overflight from New Caledonia, Australia, and Guam are potential enablers but are not pre-authorized.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/05_Country_Fact_Sheet.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 05 — COUNTRY FACT SHEET — REPUBLIC OF VANUATU — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+## Geography and population
+
+The Republic of Vanuatu is a Y-shaped archipelago of some eighty islands in the Southwest Pacific. The population is concentrated on Efate (capital, Port Vila) and Espiritu Santo (Luganville), with substantial dispersed populations across the Shepherd Islands and the northern and southern island groups. The terrain is volcanic and mountainous, the population is largely coastal, and many communities are reachable only by sea or air.
+
+## Government and politics
+
+Vanuatu is a parliamentary republic. Governments are typically multi-party coalitions, and motions of no confidence are a frequent feature of political life. At the time of the cyclone, a motion-of-no-confidence cycle is in progress and no faction holds a settled majority. A parliamentary grouping referred to as the Vanua Tasi bloc favors closer alignment with the People's Republic of China and is influential in the current maneuvering; a caretaker leadership exercises authority pending resolution. The practical consequence for foreign responders is that the locus of host-nation consent is uncertain: requests and clearances routed through one set of officials may be countermanded or delayed by another.
+
+## Foreign relations
+
+Vanuatu maintains relationships with Australia, New Zealand, France, and the United States, and has accepted infrastructure investment and policing cooperation from the People's Republic of China. Vanuatu has a record of balancing external partners to preserve its own freedom of action, including declining arrangements perceived to constrain assistance from third parties.
+
+## Society and humanitarian context
+
+Vanuatu is among the most disaster-exposed states in the world and has prior experience hosting large international relief operations following major cyclones. Customary authority (chiefs) is significant at the community level, particularly on outer islands, and affects how relief is received and distributed. The United Nations humanitarian system, through the cluster mechanism, and a range of non-governmental organizations are established partners in Vanuatu disaster response.
+
+## Implications for access
+
+Implications for access Host-nation consent for foreign assistance is not assured and is presently disputed among Vanuatu authorities; access for United States and allied responders to Port Vila and to certain districts has been subject to restriction. Relief that depends on a single point of host-nation approval is therefore at risk, and access to dispersed outer-island populations is a distinct problem from access to the capital.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/06_Critical_Geography.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 06 — CRITICAL GEOGRAPHY — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+## Distance and reach
+
+Vanuatu lies in the Southwest Pacific, distant from established United States support locations: Guam is approximately 4,000 nautical miles distant, Hawaii farther still, and continental staging farther again. French New Caledonia (Nouméa) lies approximately 500 kilometers to the southwest, and Australia's east coast roughly 1,800 kilometers to the west. The practical consequence is that the relief problem is bounded by lift and shipping over distance; the nearest substantial staging is allied (New Caledonia and Australia) rather than United States.
+
+## Air points of entry
+
+- **Bauerfield International Airport (Port Vila, Efate).** The principal international airport. Cyclone damage to airfield surfaces, navigational aids, and the terminal has reduced throughput; ramp space and materials-handling equipment are limited even when the field is usable. Restoration of throughput is a precondition for sustained fixed-wing relief into the capital.
+
+- **Santo-Pekoa International Airport (Luganville, Espiritu Santo).** A secondary field, less affected, offering an alternate aerial entry point for the north.
+
+## Sea points of entry
+
+- **Lapetasi (Port Vila) wharf, Efate.** The principal commercial wharf, partially blocked and structurally degraded by the cyclone; berthing for relief shipping is constrained pending survey and clearance.
+
+- **Luganville (Simon Peter) wharf, Espiritu Santo.** A large, modern, Chinese-built wharf, intact, capable of berthing large vessels. It is both a logistics opportunity and a point of competition, given its provenance and the competitor's interest.
+
+- **Over-the-shore and sea-basing.** Given degraded fixed ports, delivery by landing craft, connectors, and air from sea-based shipping is a feasible alternative that reduces dependence on contested fixed infrastructure and on a single point of host-nation approval.
+
+## Internal distribution
+
+The dispersed, multi-island population means that arrival of relief at a port of entry does not equate to delivery; distribution to the Shepherd Islands and other outer groups requires rotary-wing and small-craft movement and is the harder half of the throughput problem. Customary authority and damaged local infrastructure further shape distribution.
+
+## Environmental factors
+
+The post-cyclone environment features degraded fixed communications, intermittent positioning, navigation, and timing reliability, debris-fouled sea and air approaches, and the continuing cyclone season. These factors compound the distance problem and reduce the assumption of persistent situational awareness.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/07_CJCS_EXORD.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# CJCS EXECUTE ORDER — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+FM CJCS WASHINGTON DC
+
+TO USINDOPACOM HONOLULU HI
+
+INFO SECDEF WASHINGTON DC / JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC /
+
+USTRANSCOM SCOTT AFB IL / DOS WASHINGTON DC / USAID WASHINGTON DC
+
+CLAS UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+MSGID/ORDER/CJCS/EXORD/OP CORAL TEMPEST//
+
+SUBJ/EXECUTE ORDER FOR DOD SUPPORT TO FOREIGN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE
+
+AND DISASTER RELIEF — REPUBLIC OF VANUATU//
+
+REF/A/DOCTRINE/JP 3-29 FOREIGN HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE//
+
+REF/B/DOCTRINE/JP 5-0 JOINT PLANNING//
+
+REF/C/AGREEMENT/FRANZ ARRANGEMENT (FRANCE-AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND)//
+
+REF/D/MSG/SECDEF FHA EXECUTION AUTHORITIES (E)//
+
+TIMEZONE/ZULU//
+
+## 1. Situation
+
+a\. **General.** On 050600Z FEB 2026, Severe Tropical Cyclone RUA (Category 5) made landfall over Efate, Republic of Vanuatu, devastating the capital, Port Vila, and tracking across the central islands. Mass civilian casualties, widespread displacement, and the collapse of power, water, and communications have been reported. Bauerfield International Airport and the Port Vila wharf have sustained severe damage.
+
+b\. **Affected state.** The Republic of Vanuatu is a sovereign archipelagic state and a partner of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and France. A request for international assistance has been transmitted through humanitarian channels; the internal Vanuatu political situation is fluid, and host-nation consent arrangements for foreign assistance are being clarified through the United States Chief of Mission and the United Nations.
+
+c\. **Competitor activity.** People's Republic of China relief and security elements are present in Vanuatu. Their activity is to be treated as a factor in the operational environment and is addressed in supporting intelligence products.
+
+d\. **United States Government response.** The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), is the lead federal agency for the United States foreign disaster response. A Disaster Assistance Response Team has been designated.
+
+## 2. Mission
+
+When directed, USINDOPACOM conducts foreign humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the Republic of Vanuatu by, with, and through the FRANZ partners, in order to relieve human suffering and support the affected state, while remaining below the threshold of armed conflict.
+
+## 3. Execution
+
+a\. **Commander's intent (higher).** The purpose is to deliver timely, credible United States relief in support of the civilian-led response and to reinforce the sovereignty and resilience of the affected state and the standing of its partners. The method is supporting, enabling, and coordinated action that places civilian and host-nation authorities forward and the United States military in support. The desired end state is an affected population stabilized, relief transitioned to civilian, United Nations, and host-nation authorities, and partner access and legitimacy preserved, with United States involvement held below the threshold of armed conflict.
+
+b\. **Specified tasks to USINDOPACOM.**
+
+- \(1\) Prepare to conduct FHA/HADR on order.
+
+- \(2\) Coordinate the relief effort with the FRANZ partners (France, Australia, New Zealand) and with the United Nations humanitarian system.
+
+- \(3\) Deconflict operations with co-located People's Republic of China forces and avoid any armed incident.
+
+- \(4\) Conduct all activity within the USAID lead, the request-for-assistance and mission-tasking process, and applicable FHA authorities and funding limits, as set forth in REF D.
+
+- \(5\) Provide assessment and lift capabilities not reasonably available from civilian responders, as validated by USAID.
+
+c\. **Coordinating instructions.**
+
+- \(1\) Activity on Vanuatu sovereign territory is contingent on host-nation consent or appropriate tasking.
+
+- \(2\) Humanitarian principles and civil-military coordination guidance are to be observed throughout.
+
+- \(3\) Mission analysis is to be conducted in accordance with REF B. Information requirements, decision points, and courses of action are to be developed by USINDOPACOM; none are directed by this order.
+
+## 4. Administration and Logistics
+
+a\. Department of Defense support is request-driven, time-bound, and cost-reimbursable under FHA authorities (REF D), and is limited to capabilities not reasonably available from civilian or host-nation sources. b. Apportioned forces and shared theater lift, sealift, and ISR will be addressed by separate linked orders. Force closure is time-phased and constrained by distance from established support locations. c. Staging and basing support may be requested from regional partners; arrangements are to be coordinated through the appropriate diplomatic and component channels.
+
+## 5. Command and Signal
+
+a\. **Command.** USINDOPACOM is the supported combatant command for Department of Defense execution and provides assistance to the USAID-led United States Government response. A subordinate joint task force may be established. b. **Signal.** This order is effective for planning on receipt. Acknowledge.
+
+DECL/EXERCISE DATA ONLY//
+
+
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/10_JIPOE_Brief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 10 — JIPOE BRIEF — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+## Step 1 — Define the operational environment
+
+The operational environment is the Republic of Vanuatu and its approaches in the Southwest Pacific, set within a region of strategic competition below the threshold of armed conflict. Relevant actors are the affected state (with a contested internal politics), the United States, the FRANZ partners (France, Australia, New Zealand), the United Nations humanitarian system and non-governmental organizations, and the People's Republic of China as a competitor present in the disaster space.
+
+## Step 2 — Describe environmental effects
+
+- **Physical.** A Category-5 cyclone has degraded the principal air and sea ports of entry on Efate, disrupted communications and positioning/navigation/timing, and complicated movement to dispersed outer islands. Distance from United States support locations bounds the relief effort; the nearest substantial staging is allied (New Caledonia, Australia).
+
+- **Civil.** Mass displacement and acute needs in water, medical care, and shelter; a multi-island population reached only by air and sea; customary authority significant at the community level; an established United Nations cluster system and non-governmental presence.
+
+- **Political/information.** Host-nation consent is contested among Vanuatu authorities. The information environment is actively contested: People's Republic of China messaging frames its assistance as benevolent and a United States military role as militarized.
+
+## Step 3 — Evaluate the threat / competitor
+
+The People's Republic of China presence comprises a naval hospital ship and escorts, a coast-guard cutter, police advisors ashore, and infrastructure leverage (the Luganville wharf). People's Republic of China activity is gray-zone and below the threshold of armed conflict; force is assessed unlikely, while shadowing, visibility competition, and exploitation of United States or allied missteps are likely. The surface presentation of the presence as humanitarian is distinguished from its assessed strategic-access purpose. Regime-style penetration is not the issue here; the competitor's strength is narrative and presence, and its vulnerability is the perception of self-interest and coercion.
+
+## Step 4 — Determine threat/competitor courses of action and analytic gaps
+
+The most likely competitor course of action is to maintain a visible, "benevolent" relief presence, deepen access through a sympathetic host-nation bloc, and avoid any incident that would justify a firm United States or allied response. A course of action of concern is the use of the host-nation bloc to restrict United States and allied access while the People's Republic of China fills the resulting gap. Key gaps the staff must resolve through information requirements include the true locus and stability of host-nation consent, People's Republic of China intent and likely response to a United States and allied effort, the throughput and restoration timeline of the ports of entry, and the location and needs of dispersed populations. This brief does not nominate information requirements, decision points, or courses of action for the friendly force; those are products of the mission analysis.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/11_Annexes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 11 — ANNEXES — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+## Annex A — Foreign humanitarian assistance authorities (extract)
+
+United States foreign disaster assistance is led by the United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance. Department of Defense provides support, governed by the following standing limits:
+
+- Support is **request-driven** — provided in response to a validated request for assistance and a mission tasking, not undertaken unilaterally.
+
+- Support is limited to capabilities **not reasonably available** from civilian, commercial, host-nation, or other international sources (the "unique capability" or "last-resort" test).
+
+- Support is **time-bound** and intended to bridge to civilian and host-nation capacity, with a defined transition.
+
+- Support is **cost-reimbursable** under the applicable authorities and is accounted accordingly.
+
+- Immediate-response authority by an on-scene commander to save lives or prevent suffering is narrowly bounded and does not substitute for the request-and-tasking process.
+
+## Annex B — Civil-military coordination and humanitarian principles (extract)
+
+Relief is conducted consistent with humanitarian principles (humanity, neutrality, impartiality, independence). Military forces provide requested assistance and support to the humanitarian response. Coordination with the United Nations humanitarian system occurs through the cluster mechanism and an on-scene humanitarian-military coordination element. Direct military delivery of assistance is a last resort where civilian means are insufficient; the use of military assets is intended to preserve, not blur, the distinction between humanitarian and military action.
+
+## Annex C — Rules of engagement / rules for the use of force (extract)
+
+The operation is conducted below the threshold of armed conflict. Force is authorized only for self-defense and the defense of designated persons and units. Engagement, harassment, or provocation of People's Republic of China forces is not authorized; the standing requirement is to deconflict, to avoid incidents, and to report contact. Actions on Vanuatu sovereign territory require host-nation consent or appropriate tasking. Nothing in these rules is to be construed as authorizing an armed challenge to competitor forces or an entry without consent.
+
+## Annex D — Coordination references
+
+FRANZ Arrangement (France–Australia–New Zealand) for regional disaster-response coordination; the United Nations cluster system (water/sanitation/hygiene, health, shelter, logistics, protection); host-nation national disaster management arrangements. These annexes provide reference detail only; specified and implied tasks, information requirements, and decision points are developed in the mission analysis.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/12_CIPG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# COMMANDER'S INITIAL PLANNING GUIDANCE (CIPG) — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+**From:** Commander, United States Indo-Pacific Command **To:** USINDOPACOM Staff; Commander, Joint Task Force CORAL (on establishment) **Subject:** Initial planning guidance for mission analysis — FHA/HADR, Republic of Vanuatu **Reference:** CJCS Execute Order, Operation CORAL TEMPEST; JP 3-29; JP 5-0
+
+## 1. Initial understanding of the problem
+
+A catastrophic cyclone has struck a partner archipelago at a moment of internal political uncertainty, and a competitor is already present and visibly providing relief. The command's task is to provide foreign disaster relief quickly and credibly, by, with, and through the FRANZ partners, without crossing the threshold into an armed incident and without displacing the civilian and host-nation lead. The hard problems are problems of access, legitimacy, and reach — not of combat.
+
+## 2. Commander's intent (initial)
+
+The relief effort is to be fast, visibly cooperative with the affected state and the FRANZ partners, and disciplined in keeping the United States military in a support and assist role. Speed and legitimacy are to be weighed together; neither a slow response nor an overbearing one serves the end state. The command's standing is best protected by enabling others and by being seen to respect Vanuatu sovereignty.
+
+## 3. Planning priorities (in order)
+
+The staff is directed to prioritize the analysis as follows:
+
+1.  Feasibility of relief delivery given degraded ports and the distances involved.
+
+2.  Host-nation consent and legitimacy, and the civilian (USAID) and host-nation lead.
+
+3.  Coordination and integration with the FRANZ partners and the United Nations humanitarian system.
+
+4.  Escalation management and deconfliction with co-located competitor forces.
+
+5.  Force protection and the preservation of humanitarian neutrality.
+
+## 4. Guidance on tempo and risk
+
+Time is a weighted factor: human suffering and the competition for legitimacy both reward speed, but not at the cost of an incident or a sovereignty violation. The staff is to surface where speed and prudence are in tension and to frame those tensions for decision rather than resolving them by assumption.
+
+## 5. Planning constraints and boundaries
+
+- DOS and USAID are the lead agency. INDOPACOM offers the lead agency capabilities not reasonably available from civilian or host-nation sources.
+
+- No activity is to be planned on Vanuatu sovereign territory that presumes consent not yet granted.
+
+- Nothing in the relief effort is to be planned in a manner that could be construed as an armed challenge to competitor forces.
+
+## 6. Direction on analytic products
+
+The staff is to conduct a full mission analysis in accordance with JP 5-0 and to brief, at minimum: higher mission and intent; facts and assumptions; specified, implied, and essential tasks; constraints and restraints; centers of gravity; risk; military objectives and evaluation criteria; the commander's critical information requirements; the restated mission; and an initial force and sustainment assessment. **The commander's critical information requirements and the decision points the analysis must support are to be derived and nominated by the staff; none are pre-specified in this guidance.** Carry forward that there is no single right answer in mission analysis; present a sound, doctrinally grounded analysis and identify clearly where commander's decisions are required.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+Tab 2

packets/C3_CORAL_TEMPEST/14_Running_Estimates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)
+
+# 14 — RUNNING ESTIMATES (EXTRACTS) — OPERATION CORAL TEMPEST
+
+> Staff running-estimate extracts, provided as planning inputs. These inform the analysis; they are not themselves the mission-analysis product.
+
+## J1 — Personnel
+
+Joint manning for a joint task force headquarters can be sourced but closes over time from distance. Individual augmentation for civil-military coordination, contracting, and liaison to the FRANZ partners and the United Nations is a limiting factor for the coordination architecture.
+
+## J2 — Intelligence
+
+Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance is a shared theater resource in competition with other priorities; persistent coverage of Vanuatu and its approaches cannot be assumed. Post-cyclone degradation of communications and positioning/navigation/timing further limits situational awareness. Collection against host-nation political dynamics and competitor intent depends heavily on diplomatic and open-source reporting.
+
+## J3 — Operations
+
+Apportioned forces are limited: a joint task force headquarters, an amphibious ready group with embarked Marine air-ground elements, intra-theater airlift, and engineer, medical, and logistics detachments. Sea-basing and over-the-shore delivery are feasible and reduce dependence on degraded fixed ports.
+
+## J4 — Logistics
+
+Logistics is the binding factor. The problem is throughput over distance, not stockholding: relief must be moved across thousands of nautical miles and then distributed among dispersed islands. Degraded ports at Port Vila constrain fixed-port throughput; the intact Luganville wharf and sea-basing are the principal alternatives. Lift and sealift are shared, time-phased assets; closure of the full force is measured in weeks, while the most acute needs are measured in days.
+
+## J5 — Plans
+
+The relief problem is bounded by access (host consent and port status), reach (lift and shipping over distance), and legitimacy (the affected-state-led, multinational character of the response). The staff assesses that the decisive constraints are the contested consent and the throughput over distance.
+
+## J6 — Communications
+
+Fixed communications on Efate are largely inoperative; deployable and satellite communications are required from the outset and are themselves lift-dependent. A communications architecture resilient to the degraded environment is a precondition for coordinated relief.
+
+## Surgeon / Medical
+
+Acute needs are assessed in trauma care, water and sanitation, and disease prevention among displaced populations. Afloat medical capability (sea-based) offsets the degraded fixed medical infrastructure ashore and the presence of a competitor hospital ship in the same space.
+
+UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EXERCISE / TRAINING USE ONLY (E)