Workflow purpose: Create repeatable, reviewable comparisons that support technical learning and research discussion rather than treating a single simulation output as definitive evidence.
01
Research Question — Define what is being studied
Begin with a clearly defined scenario, preparedness question, technical question, or comparison goal so the exercise has an interpretable purpose.
- State the question being examined.
- Identify the variables that should remain controlled.
- Identify the conditions intended to change between cases.
Expected output: a defined research or technical-review objective.
02
Configure — Establish comparison conditions
Configure a baseline and comparison cases with explicit mission context, patient state, environment, resources, personnel constraints, timing, scenario configuration, or operational assumptions as relevant.
- Document what is fixed across cases.
- Document what changes intentionally.
- Keep comparison conditions explicit enough to support repeatability.
Expected output: a defined baseline case and documented comparison variables.
03
Run — Execute repeatable cases
Run baseline and comparison cases through a repeatable process so differences can be interpreted as the result of defined changes rather than unrelated variation.
- Capture scenario progression, action sequencing, feasibility, resource constraints, blocked paths, reassessment, modeled response, and explainable priorities as available.
- Repeat cases when consistency itself is part of the question.
Expected output: a set of comparable scenario or preparedness runs.
04
Review — Inspect outputs and reasoning
Examine both the result and the path used to reach it. Similar final outcomes can arise from different reasoning pathways, and small constraint changes can create meaningful feasibility or timing differences.
- Review what actions occurred and when.
- Review why they were prioritized or blocked.
- Review represented state changes, unresolved issues, and reassessment.
- Use explainable outputs to inspect why cases differ.
Expected output: an interpretable record of each case and its reasoning pathway.
05
Compare — Evaluate changed conditions
Compare the baseline with intentionally altered cases and identify what stayed stable, what changed, why it changed, and what remains uncertain.
- Compare environmental constraints, resources, timing, communication, mission phase, personnel availability, severity, procedural feasibility, or other defined variables.
- Avoid treating one difference as validated causation without sufficient evidence.
Expected output: an evidence-backed comparison rather than a simple side-by-side result list.
06
Refine — Use findings to improve the next iteration
Use findings to improve scenario design, drill design, Academy material, system logic, technical requirements, preparedness assumptions, validation questions, or research hypotheses.
- Convert findings into the next specific technical or research question.
- Preserve unresolved uncertainty rather than overstating conclusions.
- Repeat the cycle when more evidence is needed.
Expected output: a clearer next question, improved scenario configuration, or identified area for technical development or validation.
Responsible scope: This workflow supports research, simulation comparison, technical review, preparedness studies, and validation planning. It does not itself establish clinical validation, clinical efficacy, or operational approval.
