Military planning can begin in the open. MilPlan OS helps military professionals transform a few sentences into structured planning inputs using frontier AI and publicly available information. It supports operational, capability, and procurement planning while keeping internal information outside public AI systems. "OS" means both "open source" and "operating system": the work is open source because it uses only publicly available information, and it is an operating system because it provides a repeatable framework for research, document development, review, and transition into protected internal planning. MilPlan OS does not produce a final military plan or official decision, but a substantial external input for professional judgment, verification, and internal staff work.
We also work on other projects, which you can explore here.
MilPlan OS is a controlled framework for using public frontier AI and publicly available information to create substantial military planning inputs for later protected internal use.
Military organizations already rely on public information, yet public frontier AI remains largely absent from professional military work.
The framework turns a short public situation description into a researched and enriched planning document through four controlled work products.
The finished document is designed to serve as an external planning input rather than as a substitute for military responsibility or internal processes.
This section defines the terms used throughout MilPlan OS so that the document structure, workflow stages, work products, prompts, planning applications, and information boundary remain consistent and unambiguous.
Public AI services are rarely used for professional military work, even when the task could be performed entirely using publicly available information.
Military personnel often interpret restrictions on internal information as a general prohibition on public AI use.
Formal restrictions, informal discouragement, and limited practical knowledge reinforce each other.
The absence of current use does not mean that legitimate military applications are unavailable.
Military organizations already rely extensively on public information, but they have not yet connected this established practice to the capabilities of public frontier AI.
Publicly available information is an accepted and operationally relevant military resource.
The military use of public information is broader than the work performed by specialized intelligence personnel.
The established acceptance of public sources has not translated into systematic use of public AI services.
Military personnel often avoid legitimate public AI use because unclear guidance, perceived personal risk, and institutional caution make inaction appear safer than experimentation.
The strongest barrier is the belief that using public AI may expose internal information and create individual liability.
Technical controls and incomplete guidance often communicate prohibition more clearly than permitted use.
Personnel are more likely to use public AI when the organization provides a tested method and clearly distributes responsibility.
Current frontier AI can perform substantial research and document-development tasks that many military users still associate with much simpler chatbot capabilities.
The relevant capability is no longer limited to isolated questions, summaries, or short drafting tasks.
The combination of research tools, reasoning, context handling, and long-form output enables a new class of professional military use.
Frontier AI remains fallible, but its limitations can be managed through a staged and reviewable process.
Internal and public AI systems serve different information environments and should be treated as complementary capabilities rather than interchangeable alternatives.
The primary value of an internal military AI system is that it can support work involving information that must remain inside the organization.
The existence of an internal AI system does not mean that it provides the best available capability for every permitted task.
A military task can be divided so that each information environment is used for the work it is permitted to perform and best suited to.
Capable AI tools and general policies are not enough because military users still need a clear method for turning public information into professional planning inputs.
Most military AI guidance focuses on restrictions rather than on practical public-information workflows.
Serious planning work requires separate stages that make direction, evidence, and document development visible.
Military personnel need more than just permission, as most users will not design a complex AI workflow themselves.
MilPlan OS uses a brief initial description and a staged AI workflow to quickly produce substantial external planning inputs with minimal user effort.
The framework reduces the time required to create researched, structured planning input from public information.
MilPlan OS reduces production effort while preserving the need for direction, review, and judgment.
The value of MilPlan OS lies in the quality and range of the additional material it can contribute.
MilPlan OS is designed for the security requirements, responsibility structures, and written planning culture of military organizations.
Military organizations operate under unusually strict information-handling requirements.
Military planning depends on accountable decisions and reviewable documents rather than informal discussion alone.
A method that works under military constraints may also be useful in less restrictive environments.
MilPlan OS uses a broad definition of planning that includes the written work used to understand situations, prepare choices, and support future military action.
Planning covers the organized staff work that precedes action, development, allocation, or decision-making.
MilPlan OS supports preparation and decision support but does not conduct military activity.
A MilPlan OS document can resemble an internal staff product without becoming a final decision or official plan by itself.
MilPlan OS depends on a clear information boundary that allows public frontier AI to support military planning without receiving internal military information.
The decisive test is whether the information may lawfully be shared outside the organization.
MilPlan OS reduces the initial review burden by requiring only a few carefully written sentences.
The public workflow produces an external planning input that can later be used in protected internal planning.
MilPlan OS is more than a collection of prompts because it connects the complete workflow, its work products, and its review points into one coherent method.
The term "operating system" describes how MilPlan OS manages the progression from an initial situation to a finished planning document.
MilPlan OS separates instructions that should remain consistent from instructions that change between planning applications.
MilPlan OS provides a standard starting point without becoming a rigid procedure or controlled software product.
A planning document created entirely from public information may still require protected handling because of its military purpose, analytical value, or intended internal use.
The workflow begins with a brief situation description containing only information approved for public use.
The value of the completed product may justify protected handling even though the workflow used only public information.
The author and the responsible organization determine how the completed document should be marked, stored, shared, and used.
A MilPlan OS planning document must be reviewed and verified before it is used as an input for protected internal planning.
Not every sentence requires the same level of scrutiny, but important claims and conclusions must receive careful attention.
Because MilPlan OS relies on public information, users can verify its factual foundation with publicly available tools.
Verification must examine not only whether the facts are correct, but also whether the conclusions follow from the evidence.
MilPlan OS can support military judgment and planning, but responsibility for information handling, professional review, and final decisions remains with people and organizations.
The framework does not transfer responsibility from the user to the AI system.
Military organizations remain responsible for establishing the conditions under which MilPlan OS may be used.
The framework provides additional research, analysis, options, and conclusions without approving them or authorizing action.
MilPlan OS begins with a concise public-situation description that provides the model with enough direction without requiring a detailed initial brief.
The initial statement should define the situation, the main focus, and the relevant boundaries of the task.
The later workflow stages develop the questions, evidence, and document structure that are not yet included in the starting statement.
The situation description is brief, but it remains one of the most important inputs in the complete workflow.
Public AI turns the approved situation description into a focused and reviewable set of questions that defines the direction of the research.
Generating research questions is a suitable AI task because the model can expand a short situation into several relevant lines of inquiry.
The selected research approach determines what the questions are intended to discover.
Reviewing the research questions is the most important early correction point in the workflow.
Public AI researches the approved questions, organizes the findings, and creates an evidence-led foundation for the later planning document.
The purpose of the research stage is to establish evidence, direction, and a reliable point of correction before planning begins.
The research base should distinguish what is known from what is estimated, assumed, disputed, or still uncertain.
The selected research approach determines how the findings are organized and interpreted.
Public AI uses the reviewed research base, the selected planning-document block, and model reasoning to create a professional product that goes beyond a research summary.
The research base provides the factual foundation and direction, while the planning stage develops what the findings mean for the selected military purpose.
The model may use its broader knowledge to enrich the analysis, but it must not silently introduce unsupported factual claims.
A planning document assesses the situation, derives consequences, and supports action rather than merely restating research findings.
Review gates allow users to identify errors, correct direction, and approve each work product before it becomes the input for the next stage.
The user should evaluate both the technical quality of the output and its alignment with the intended purpose.
Problems become harder and more expensive to correct as they move through the workflow.
Review gates make the workflow steerable without requiring every correction to restart the complete process.
The reviewed planning document shifts from the public workflow to protected internal planning, serving as an additional professional source.
A MilPlan OS product should be treated as a substantial planning input rather than as an isolated AI experiment.
The public planning document can be further developed once it has been transferred to an approved protected system.
The organization remains responsible for deciding how the planning input is reviewed, adapted, approved, and incorporated into later work.
Prompt blocks allow users to adapt the stable MilPlan OS workflow to different research purposes and planning document types without rewriting the entire prompt system.
The framework keeps general workflow instructions in the base prompts and moves task-specific guidance into exchangeable components.
Users can change the workflow direction by selecting or modifying the relevant block.
The block library can grow while the underlying MilPlan OS method remains recognizable and easy to use.
MilPlan OS is tool-independent in principle, but uses ChatGPT as its tested reference service throughout the workflow.
A capable public AI service can perform all four workflow stages, using different functions for different tasks.
MilPlan OS should remain usable as models, features, and providers continue to change.
A service should be considered suitable only when it can perform the required tasks reliably within the MilPlan OS workflow.
The user selects a suitable situation type and uses it to create the public three-sentence description that begins the MilPlan OS workflow.
A situation type helps the user frame the initial problem without determining the subsequent research approach or the planning-document type.
Each situation type provides three guiding questions that support the creation of the initial situation description.
The standard workflow begins with one selected situation type and one approved three-sentence statement.
The user selects a research approach to determine what the inquiry should emphasize and how the resulting evidence should be organized.
A research approach gives the model a clear perspective for investigating the approved situation.
The research block applies the selected method to both the research questions and the research base.
A focused research effort is easier to conduct, review, and correct than one that combines several different methods.
The user selects a planning-document type to define the professional purpose, structure, and expected result of the final MilPlan OS product.
A planning-document type determines what the final document is expected to accomplish.
The selected block determines how the reviewed research base is transformed into a recognizable military planning document.
Users should preferably select the planning-document type before research begins, even though the block is applied during document generation.
Four standard base prompts guide users from an initial idea to a reviewed research base and an enriched planning document.
The workflow separates the major tasks so that each output can be reviewed before it becomes the input for the next stage.
The workflow transfers only the approved context needed for the next stage, rather than relying on a single continuous conversation.
Stable instructions belong in the base prompts, while variable instructions are supplied through the selected prompt blocks.
The situation prompt turns an initial idea into a concise three-sentence situation description.
Its purpose is to help the user state the relevant situation, focus, and boundaries without creating a detailed task description. It supports clarity while preserving the requirement that only public information may enter the public AI service.
The prompt is used at the beginning of the workflow and may receive rough notes, an initial statement, or answers to the three guiding questions for the selected situation type. The model proposes a concise version for the user to review and correct before approval.
The situation prompt standardizes the form and quality of the initial work product. It does not conduct research, generate evidence, or add internal information that the user did not provide.
The research-question prompt transforms the approved situation description into a structured and editable set of research questions.
Its purpose is to expand a short situation into the lines of inquiry needed for substantial research. It combines the situation description with the selected research-question block and typically produces about ten questions.
The prompt is used after the situation description has been approved and before Deep Research begins. The user reviews the proposed questions for relevance, scope, overlap, missing perspectives, and alignment with the intended planning document.
The research-question prompt standardizes the development of the research plan while leaving the questions specific to each situation. It does not answer the questions or replace the user's approval of the final research direction.
The research prompt researches the approved questions and creates a structured research base from public sources.
Its purpose is to establish the evidence, interpretations, estimates, assumptions, disagreements, and uncertainties that will guide the planning-document stage. It also defines source standards, citation requirements, and the expected treatment of conflicting information.
The prompt is used through a capable deep-research function after the situation description and research questions have been approved. It receives the selected research block so that the inquiry and resulting structure follow the chosen research approach.
The research prompt standardizes the quality and organization of the evidence base. It does not produce the final planning document or replace the user's review of the research findings.
The planning-document prompt transforms the reviewed research base into an enriched and task-specific military planning document.
Its purpose is to apply model reasoning, synthesis, and the selected planning-document block to the evidence established during research. It develops assessment, consequences, options, requirements, recommendations, or other content appropriate to the selected document type.
The prompt is used after the research base has been reviewed and normally begins in a separate conversation. It receives the approved situation description, the reviewed research base, and the selected planning-document block.
The planning-document prompt standardizes the transformation from research into a professional product. It permits substantial analytical enrichment but does not allow the model to silently introduce unsupported factual claims.
Separate review prompts help the user and the model evaluate each work product before the workflow continues.
The situation description, research questions, research base, and planning document have different purposes and therefore require different review criteria.
The review prompt places the model into an evaluation role, while the user remains responsible for professional judgment and approval.
Review prompts should support improvement without automatically changing the approved work product.
Prompt blocks allow users to adapt the stable MilPlan OS prompt system to different research approaches and planning-document types without rewriting the base prompts.
A prompt block is an exchangeable component inserted into a base prompt to adapt a specific part of the workflow.
Users may modify existing blocks or create new ones when the standard library does not support the required planning application.
The block library should expand the range of possible applications without making selection difficult or weakening consistency.
The Situation Questions establish the factual and conceptual boundaries of the planning problem before research or planning begins. They help the user define the subject, focus, scope, actors, conditions, constraints, uncertainties, exclusions, and intended planning context.
The questions do not conduct research, assess causes, compare alternatives, develop consequences, or propose decisions. They are used to clarify what situation is being examined and what information must be fixed before the later stages of the framework can begin.
The output organizes the situation into a concise set of focused questions that the user can answer directly. The questions should reveal the relevant military problem, affected actors and functions, geographic and temporal boundaries, known conditions, important uncertainties, excluded matters, and the intended planning-document stage.
The Situation Questions support the creation of an approved situation description that becomes the binding scope for the research-question, research-base, and planning-document artifacts. Their purpose is to reduce ambiguity, prevent scope drift, and ensure that later outputs address the same defined situation.
An operational situation frames a current or possible military activity, crisis, conflict, mission, or operational environment.
Its purpose is to define the circumstances in which military action may be considered, prepared, or conducted. It establishes the operational problem without requiring the user to provide a complete mission analysis or internal planning context.
The user applies these questions when the main concern is an operation, an emerging crisis, or a change in the operational environment. The questions should help describe what is happening, why it matters, and which aspect requires further examination.
The operational situation frames the starting perspective but does not determine the research approach or planning-document type. The same operational situation may support any suitable research approach and planning document.
Questions
1. What current or possible mission, crisis, conflict, military activity, or operational environment should be examined?
2. Which aspect of this operational situation should the later research and planning work focus on?
3. Which geographic, temporal, organizational, operational, or other boundaries should limit the scope?
A capability situation frames a military capability gap, readiness problem, or force-development need.
Its purpose is to identify a difference between what military forces can currently achieve and what they may need to achieve. It may address doctrine, organization, training, materiel, or other capability components.
The user applies these questions when the main concern is creating, improving, or maintaining a military capability. The questions should help describe the current condition, the required or desired capability, and the principal boundary or development challenge.
The capability situation does not prescribe a particular solution or assume that procurement is necessary. It may support any suitable research approach and planning document.
Questions
1. What current capability condition, gap, readiness problem, or force-development need should be examined?
2. Which capability effect, improvement, or future requirement should the later research and planning work focus on?
3. Which organizational, temporal, resource, doctrinal, or other boundaries should limit the scope?
A technology situation frames an existing or emerging technology and its possible military relevance or application.
Its purpose is to examine the relationship between technological developments and military needs, opportunities, or challenges. It may begin with a defined military requirement, an existing technology, or a technical development whose military relevance is not yet clear.
The user applies these questions when a technology or technological change is central to the problem. The questions should help identify the relevant technology, the military purpose or opportunity, and the principal constraints or uncertainties.
The technology situation may proceed from a military need toward possible technological solutions or from a technology toward possible military applications. It does not determine whether the later document should recommend experimentation, capability development, adoption, or another course of action.
Questions
1. What existing or emerging technology should be examined?
2. Which military need, application, opportunity, or challenge should the later research and planning work focus on?
3. Which operational, technical, temporal, organizational, or other boundaries should limit the scope?
The situation rework prompt transforms the user's answers to the selected situation questions into a clear and professionally written situation description.
Its purpose is to improve language, focus, and internal consistency while preserving the user's intended meaning. It should organize the content according to the required situation structure without merging different elements.
The prompt is used after the user has answered the three situation questions. It should produce three separate paragraphs: one for the situation or problem, one for the main focus of the later work, and one for important boundaries, constraints, or exclusions.
The number of sentences within each paragraph may vary according to the content. Each paragraph should address only its assigned part of the situation and avoid unnecessary repetition across the three paragraphs.
Prompt
Instructions:
- Answer in English.
- Do not perform a web search.
- Use clear, direct, professional language.
- Use active voice.
- Do not use en dashes or em dashes.
- Use "" for quotation marks.
- Preserve the meaning and scope of the user's answers.
- Improve wording, focus, and internal consistency.
- Remove repetition, filler, and unclear phrasing.
- Do not merge content that belongs in different parts of the situation.
- Do not add new facts, assumptions, conclusions, or recommendations.
Input:
- The user has answered three situation questions.
- The answers may be rough, incomplete, repetitive, or written in note form.
- Treat the answers as the source material for the situation description.
Task:
- Rework the answers into a clear and coherent situation description.
- Organize the result into exactly three paragraphs.
- The first paragraph describes the relevant situation, condition, problem, or development.
- The second paragraph describes the main focus or intended direction of the later research and planning work.
- The third paragraph describes the relevant boundaries, constraints, uncertainties, or exclusions.
- Use as many sentences as necessary within each paragraph.
- Keep each paragraph limited to its assigned function.
- Preserve relevant distinctions, limitations, and qualifications from the answers.
Output format:
- Output exactly three paragraphs.
- Do not add headings, labels, bullet points, commentary, or explanations.
- Do not include the original questions or answers.
Situation answers:
Situation, condition, problem, or development:
USERINPUT
Main focus or intended direction:
USERINPUT
Boundaries, constraints, uncertainties, or exclusions:
USERINPUT
The research-question prompt transforms the approved situation description into a structured set of research questions.
Its purpose is to turn the three-part situation description into a clear research agenda that supports the selected research approach. It should preserve the distinction between the situation, the main focus, and the defined boundaries while translating them into researchable questions.
The prompt is used after the situation description has been reviewed and approved. It combines the situation description with the selected research block and produces questions that are relevant, sufficiently broad, non-repetitive, and suitable for Deep Research.
The resulting question set should provide a coherent basis for the research stage without answering the questions in advance. The user reviews, edits, and approves the questions before they are used in the research prompt.
Prompt
Instructions:
- Answer in English.
- Do not perform a web search.
- Use clear, direct, professional language.
- Use active voice.
- Do not use en dashes or em dashes.
- Use only straight double quotation marks "".
- Use the approved situation description as the primary basis for the research questions.
- Apply the selected research-question block consistently.
- Keep the questions within the defined focus, boundaries, constraints, uncertainties, and exclusions.
- Do not answer the questions.
- Do not introduce conclusions, recommendations, requirements, options, decisions, or preferred outcomes.
- Avoid unnecessary overlap and repetition.
Input:
- The approved situation description defines the subject, focus, and boundaries of the research.
- The selected research-question block defines the research approach, object of inquiry, required coverage, important distinctions, boundaries, and logical progression.
- The intended planning-document type may provide additional orientation.
- The intended planning-document type must not predetermine the research questions or expected findings.
Task:
- Transform the approved situation description into a structured set of research questions.
- Generate questions that provide a sufficient basis for ChatGPT Deep Research and the later planning-document stage.
- Cover the relevant scope of the situation without expanding beyond its defined boundaries.
- Use the selected research-question block to determine what requires investigation.
- Ensure that the question set clearly establishes the specific object of inquiry required by the selected research-question block.
- Ensure that the question set defines any subjects, cases, comparison dimensions, outcomes, developments, or other elements required by the selected research approach.
- Ensure that the complete question set covers all approach-defining elements in the selected research-question block.
- Do not force each approach-defining element into a separate question.
- Formulate and combine questions naturally according to the subject and research needs.
- Preserve relevant distinctions, limitations, qualifications, uncertainties, and exclusions from the approved situation description.
Question quality:
- Make each question clear, specific, neutral, and researchable.
- Focus each question on one main issue.
- Avoid leading wording and unsupported assumptions.
- Avoid questions that predetermine the findings.
- Avoid questions that would produce substantially the same evidence.
- Use sufficiently broad questions to support meaningful research without combining unrelated issues.
- Order the questions logically from basic orientation toward deeper investigation.
- Generate around ten questions.
- Use fewer or more questions when the subject and selected research-question block clearly require it.
Output format:
- Write a numbered list of research questions.
- Write each question as one complete sentence.
- Do not use subquestions.
- Do not add headings between groups of questions.
- Do not include answers.
- Do not include explanations, notes, or commentary.
Approved situation description:
USERINPUT
Selected research-question block:
USERINPUT
Intended planning-document type, if already selected:
USERINPUT
The research-question blocks define how each research approach is translated into a structured inquiry.
Each block specifies:
The blocks guide the generation and review of research questions. They do not contain the research itself, define the structure of the research base, or produce planning assessments, options, requirements, recommendations, or decisions.
Descriptive research establishes what exists, what is happening, and which characteristics define the subject under examination.
Its purpose is to create a clear, structured, and source-based account of a situation, condition, event, system, organization, activity, or development. It emphasizes observable characteristics, relevant actors, documented activities, relationships, context, patterns, effects, constraints, and areas where public evidence remains incomplete.
The user selects descriptive research when the planning problem requires a reliable factual picture before further analysis can begin. The generated questions should define what must be described and ensure sufficient coverage of the relevant geographic, temporal, organizational, operational, technical, and other dimensions.
Descriptive research provides orientation and establishes the factual basis for later planning work. It does not primarily compare multiple cases, investigate why a specific outcome occurred, or determine what should be done.
Prompt block
- Purpose: Development of a clear, structured, and source-based account of the selected subject.
- Object of inquiry: The situation, condition, event, system, organization, activity, or development defined by the approved situation description.
- Central focus: What exists, what is happening, who or what is involved, and which characteristics define the subject.
- Required coverage: Relevant actors, activities, relationships, developments, conditions, context, patterns, effects, constraints, dependencies, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Contextual dimensions: Geographic, temporal, organizational, operational, technical, legal, political, economic, or other dimensions relevant to the subject.
- Evidence distinctions: Facts, claims, estimates, projections, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Boundary: No systematic comparison of multiple cases and no primary investigation of why a specific outcome occurred unless necessary to describe the subject accurately.
- Progression: From basic orientation and context toward characteristics, actors, activities, relationships, developments, effects, constraints, and unresolved evidence.
Comparative research establishes factual similarities and differences among two or more defined cases.
Its purpose is to create a consistent, source-based comparison using common dimensions and, where possible, equivalent evidence. It emphasizes comparable characteristics, observed performance, maturity, scale, organization, cost, use, outcomes, constraints, and the contextual conditions that affect interpretation.
The user selects comparative research when multiple systems, organizations, technologies, doctrines, activities, countries, programs, or other cases require examination on a common basis. The generated questions should define the cases, establish the relevant dimensions for comparison, and identify conditions that may limit direct comparison.
Comparative research documents how the cases are similar or different. It does not automatically rank them, select a preferred case, create planning options, or recommend a course of action.
Prompt block
- Purpose: Development of a consistent and source-based comparison of two or more defined cases.
- Objects of inquiry: The cases, systems, organizations, technologies, doctrines, activities, countries, programs, or other subjects defined by the approved situation description.
- Central focus: How the examined cases are similar or different according to common dimensions and available evidence.
- Required coverage: Comparable characteristics, performance, maturity, scale, organization, cost, use, outcomes, constraints, dependencies, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Comparison basis: Common definitions, dimensions, indicators, timeframes, operating conditions, measurement methods, and evidence standards where available.
- Contextual limits: Differences in definitions, environments, test conditions, reporting practices, data quality, and source availability that may restrict direct comparison.
- Evidence distinctions: Facts, claims, estimates, projections, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Boundary: No automatic ranking, preferred case, planning option, recommendation, or assumption that all cases are equally comparable.
- Progression: From defining the cases and comparison basis toward similarities, differences, contextual limits, recurring patterns, and unresolved evidence.
Explanatory research investigates why an observed outcome, difference, success, failure, pattern, event, or development occurred.
Its purpose is to create a source-based account of the factors, mechanisms, conditions, and sequences that may explain the observed result. It emphasizes competing explanations, supporting and contradictory evidence, causal relationships, contributing factors, and the conditions under which an explanation may apply.
The user selects explanatory research when the central planning problem cannot be understood through description alone. The generated questions should define the outcome to be explained and ensure coverage of possible causes, mechanisms, sequences, contextual conditions, competing explanations, and counterevidence.
Explanatory research identifies what the available evidence can and cannot explain. It does not convert an explanation into a planning assessment, requirement, option, recommendation, or decision.
Prompt block
- Purpose: Development of a source-based explanation of an observed outcome, difference, success, failure, pattern, event, or development.
- Object of inquiry: The observed result or development defined by the approved situation description.
- Central focus: Which factors, mechanisms, conditions, and sequences may explain the observed outcome.
- Required coverage: Possible causes, contributing factors, mechanisms, enabling conditions, sequences, competing explanations, counterevidence, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Explanatory distinctions: Correlation, contribution, attribution, documented causation, necessary conditions, sufficient conditions, and unresolved relationships where relevant.
- Evidence testing: Evidence supporting each explanation, evidence contradicting it, and conditions under which the explanation may or may not apply.
- Evidence distinctions: Facts, claims, estimates, projections, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Boundary: No conversion of explanatory findings into planning assessments, requirements, options, recommendations, or preferred decisions.
- Progression: From defining the observed outcome toward possible explanations, mechanisms, supporting evidence, counterevidence, applicable conditions, and unresolved explanations.
The research-question review evaluates whether the proposed questions provide a strong and efficient basis for Deep Research.
Its purpose is to check coverage, relevance, scope, overlap, neutrality, researchability, and alignment with the selected research approach and intended planning document. It should also identify missing perspectives and questions that are too broad, narrow, repetitive, or outcome-driven.
The review prompt is used after the initial question set has been generated and before research begins. The model proposes additions, removals, combinations, and wording improvements for the user to consider.
The research-question review has a particularly strong effect on the final quality because it determines the direction of all subsequent research. The user must explicitly approve the final set of questions before it is used as input for Deep Research.
Prompt
Instructions:
- Answer in English.
- Do not perform a web search.
- Use clear, direct, professional language.
- Use active voice.
- Do not use en dashes or em dashes.
- Use only straight double quotation marks "".
- Preserve the intended scope, focus, boundaries, constraints, uncertainties, and exclusions.
- Do not answer the research questions.
- Do not introduce new facts, assumptions, conclusions, recommendations, requirements, options, decisions, or preferred outcomes.
Input:
- The approved situation description defines the subject, main focus, and boundaries of the research.
- The selected research-question block defines the research approach, object of inquiry, required coverage, important distinctions, boundaries, and logical progression.
- The draft research questions define the proposed research agenda.
- The intended planning-document type may provide additional orientation but must not predetermine the research questions or expected findings.
Task:
- Review and revise the draft research questions.
- Create a coherent and sufficient basis for ChatGPT Deep Research and the later planning-document stage.
- Revise the questions only where necessary to improve the research agenda.
- Ensure that the complete question set covers all approach-defining elements in the selected research-question block.
- Do not force each approach-defining element into a separate question.
- Formulate and combine questions naturally according to the subject and research needs.
Review criteria:
- Reflect the approved situation description.
- Apply the selected research-question block consistently.
- Address the object of inquiry defined by the selected research-question block.
- Remain within the approved scope and boundaries.
- Cover the required elements of the selected research approach.
- Provide sufficient coverage without unnecessary expansion.
- Preserve important distinctions, limitations, qualifications, uncertainties, and exclusions.
- Use clear, specific, neutral, and researchable questions.
- Address one main issue in each question.
- Progress logically from basic orientation toward deeper investigation.
- Avoid substantial overlap and repetition.
- Avoid leading language.
- Avoid unsupported assumptions.
- Avoid predetermined findings or outcomes.
- Avoid questions that belong to the planning-document stage.
Permitted revisions:
- Remove unnecessary questions.
- Combine substantially overlapping questions.
- Divide questions that address more than one main issue.
- Reorder questions to improve the logical progression.
- Rewrite unclear, overly broad, overly narrow, leading, or repetitive questions.
- Add a question only when an important part of the approved situation description or selected research-question block is not adequately covered.
Number of questions:
- Use the number of questions required by the research problem and selected research approach.
- Do not preserve the original number merely for consistency.
Output format:
- Provide the revised research questions as a numbered list.
- Write each question as one complete sentence.
- Do not use subquestions.
- Do not place headings between groups of questions.
- Do not provide answers.
- After the numbered list, provide a brief review note stating the most important changes made and any remaining limitations in the question set.
- Do not repeat the full situation description, selected research-question block, or original question set.
Approved situation description:
USERINPUT
Selected research-question block:
USERINPUT
Draft research questions:
USERINPUT
Intended planning-document type, if already selected:
USERINPUT
The research prompt transforms the approved research questions into a structured research base using publicly available information.
Its purpose is to investigate the approved questions, identify relevant evidence, and organize the findings into a scannable, source-linked evidence product for later planning work. It distinguishes facts, claims, estimates, projections, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
The prompt is used after the research questions have been reviewed and approved. It combines the approved question set with the selected research-base block and guides ChatGPT Deep Research in finding, evaluating, labeling, citing, and structuring the evidence.
The resulting research base should address the approved questions, provide a source reference for each evidence item, and transparently represent conflicting or incomplete evidence. It should support the planning-document stage without producing planning assessments, options, requirements, recommendations, or decisions.
Prompt
Instructions:
- Answer in English.
- Perform comprehensive ChatGPT Deep Research using publicly available sources.
- Use clear, direct, professional language.
- Use active voice.
- Do not use en dashes or em dashes.
- Use only straight double quotation marks "".
- Treat the approved situation description as the binding scope of the research.
- Use the approved research questions to guide the investigation.
- Apply the selected research-base block consistently.
- Produce a structured, scannable, and source-linked research base for the planning-document stage.
- Do not produce a conventional narrative report.
- Do not develop planning assessments, options, requirements, recommendations, decisions, or preferred outcomes.
Input:
- The approved situation description defines the subject, focus, boundaries, constraints, uncertainties, and exclusions.
- The approved research questions define the issues that require investigation and establish the specific object of inquiry.
- The selected research-base block defines the research approach, the Executive Summary functions, the required level-one main chapters, the analytical progression, and the approach-specific boundaries.
- The intended planning-document type may provide additional orientation.
- The intended planning-document type must not influence the factual findings or predetermine later analysis.
Task:
- Investigate the approved research questions within the approved situation and selected research approach.
- Preserve the specific object of inquiry established by the approved research questions.
- Ensure that the research base covers all subjects, cases, comparison dimensions, outcomes, developments, or other elements required by the selected research-base block.
- Develop a structured evidence product for the later planning-document stage.
- Include the approved research questions unchanged in the dedicated Research Questions chapter.
- Address the approved research questions through the relevant main chapters rather than reproducing each question as a chapter or subchapter heading.
- Organize the evidence according to the selected research-base block.
- Capture the relevant facts, claims, estimates, projections, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Preserve the distinction between sourced evidence and later planning assessment.
- Produce an output that can be scanned quickly and reused directly in the next stage of the framework.
Source selection:
- Prioritize official documents, original data, technical documentation, legislation, formal statements, and other sources closest to the underlying information.
- Use independent reporting and expert analysis to verify, contextualize, challenge, or supplement those sources.
- Use weaker or indirect sources only when stronger evidence is unavailable.
- Represent each finding according to its evidentiary status and use the corresponding label.
- Preserve relevant claims, estimates, and projections when they contribute to the selected research approach.
- Attribute claims, estimates, and projections clearly within the sentence.
- Verify important findings through more than one source where suitable evidence is available.
- Do not use unsupported inference to fill missing information.
Evidence labels:
- Begin every evidence bullet with exactly one of the following labels.
- "Fact:" identifies information directly supported as established by the cited evidence.
- "Claim:" identifies a statement, position, or assertion attributed to a person, organization, government, company, or other source.
- "Estimate:" identifies a calculated or assessed value that is not directly established.
- "Projection:" identifies a possible or expected future development presented by a cited source.
- "Disagreement:" identifies conflicting findings, claims, figures, interpretations, or positions.
- "Uncertainty:" identifies an issue that remains unclear, conditional, disputed, incomplete, or insufficiently established.
- "Evidence gap:" identifies information that is relevant to the research but is not established by available public sources.
- Use the label that best represents the evidentiary status of the complete bullet.
- Do not combine findings with different evidentiary statuses in one bullet when they require different labels.
Citation format:
- End every evidence bullet in the level-one main chapters defined by the selected research-base block with one or more source numbers in square brackets.
- Cite each source every time it supports a bullet, even when the same source appears in consecutive bullets.
- Use "[1]" for one source.
- Use "[1][4][7]" for multiple sources.
- Do not include author names, publication dates, source titles, hyperlinks, footnotes, or explanatory text inside the citation brackets.
- Do not create any uncited evidence bullet in the level-one main chapters defined by the selected research-base block.
- Do not place source numbers in the Executive Summary.
- Do not place source numbers in the Research Questions chapter.
- Use one continuous source-number sequence throughout the research base.
- Ensure that every cited source number appears in the Sources chapter.
- Do not include uncited sources in the Sources chapter.
Writing format:
- Use Markdown internally.
- Make the output suitable for saving as either a ".md" file or a plain ".txt" file.
- Use headings and flat bullets for the Executive Summary and main research chapters.
- Use a numbered list only in the Research Questions chapter and the Sources chapter.
- Do not use narrative paragraphs.
- Do not use nested bullets.
- Do not use tables.
- Write one complete sentence per bullet or numbered item.
- Keep each evidence bullet focused on one evidence item.
- Keep the wording concise, factual, and independently understandable.
- Do not rely on surrounding bullets to complete the meaning of a sentence.
Overall structure:
- Use "# Executive Summary" as the first level-one chapter.
- Use "# Research Questions" as the second level-one chapter.
- Use the main chapters defined in the selected research-base block as the following level-one Markdown headings beginning with "#".
- Use the exact main chapter titles and order defined in the selected research-base block.
- Use "# Sources" as the final level-one chapter.
- Do not add other level-one chapters.
- Keep methodology, disagreement, uncertainty, and evidence-gap information within the relevant main chapters.
- Do not create separate methodology, findings, conclusions, recommendations, uncertainty, limitations, or evidence-gap chapters.
Executive Summary:
- Create exactly three level-two subchapters under "# Executive Summary".
- Use the three Executive Summary functions defined in the selected research-base block.
- Create one specific and informative "##" heading for each function based on the research topic and findings.
- Use exactly seven bullets under each level-two heading.
- Begin every Executive Summary bullet with one evidence label.
- Do not include source numbers in the Executive Summary.
- Summarize only findings that are supported in the sourced main chapters.
- Do not introduce information that does not appear in the sourced main chapters.
- Do not include conclusions, recommendations, options, requirements, decisions, or preferred outcomes.
- Avoid repeating the same finding across the three Executive Summary sections.
Research Questions chapter:
- Use "# Research Questions" as the heading.
- Reproduce the approved research questions unchanged.
- Present the questions as a numbered Markdown list.
- Preserve their original wording and order.
- Write one complete question per numbered item.
- Do not add answers, explanations, evidence labels, citations, commentary, or additional questions.
- Do not use the research questions as headings in the main chapters.
Main chapters:
- Create level-two subchapters freely according to the topic, evidence, and findings.
- Use no more than seven level-two subchapters within any level-one main chapter.
- Treat seven subchapters as a maximum, not a target.
- Create only the subchapters that improve coverage, clarity, or source separation.
- Do not create a subchapter merely to fill the available structure.
- Use no more than ten bullets within any level-two subchapter.
- Treat ten bullets as a maximum, not a target.
- Use only the number of bullets required to present the relevant evidence clearly.
- Do not create filler bullets.
- Do not use level-three headings.
- Do not place bullets directly under a level-one main chapter.
- Ensure that each main chapter contributes distinct evidence and avoids unnecessary repetition.
Conflicting evidence:
- Place conflicting evidence within the subchapter where the subject is examined.
- Present each materially different position or finding in a separate sourced bullet.
- Use "Disagreement:" for a bullet that directly describes the conflict.
- Explain the basis of the disagreement when the cited evidence supports an explanation.
- Use "Uncertainty:" when the available evidence does not resolve the conflict.
- Do not select a preferred position unless the evidence clearly establishes that one position is factually stronger.
- When one position is better supported, describe the evidence without turning the finding into a planning assessment.
Uncertainty and evidence gaps:
- Place uncertainty and evidence gaps directly beside the subject they affect.
- Use "Uncertainty:" when relevant information exists but remains unclear, conditional, disputed, or incomplete.
- Use "Evidence gap:" when relevant public evidence is unavailable or does not establish the required information.
- Cite sources that demonstrate the limit of the available evidence whenever possible.
- Do not speculate beyond the available evidence.
- Do not move uncertainty or evidence gaps into a separate chapter.
Sources chapter:
- Use "# Sources" as the final heading.
- Present the sources as a Markdown numbered list.
- Use the format "1. Full source information".
- Do not place square brackets around source numbers in the Sources chapter.
- Include the author or issuing organization when available.
- Include the source title.
- Include the publication date when available.
- Include the publication or website name when relevant.
- Include a direct link.
- Include enough information to identify and retrieve the source.
- Assign one number to each unique source.
- Do not assign multiple numbers to the same source.
Output format:
- Output only the complete research base in Markdown.
- Begin with "# Executive Summary".
- Continue with "# Research Questions".
- Continue with the level-one main chapters defined in the selected research-base block.
- End with "# Sources".
- Do not reproduce the prompt, inputs, or research-base block outside the required research-base structure.
- Do not include explanations, notes, or commentary before or after the research base.
Approved situation description:
USERINPUT
Approved research questions:
USERINPUT
Selected research-base block:
USERINPUT
Intended planning-document type, if already selected:
USERINPUT
The research-base blocks define the research approach and substantive structure of a research base. They translate the common research method into approach-specific requirements while preserving the same evidence standards, source discipline, and output format.
Each block defines the research purpose, object of inquiry, central focus, analytical boundary, Executive Summary functions, and seven fixed level-one chapters. The level-one chapters establish the main areas through which the approved research questions are investigated and answered.
Within each level-one chapter, the model creates topic-specific level-two sections based on the subject and available evidence. The block determines the analytical progression, required coverage, and distinctions between chapters without forcing the research base into a conventional narrative report.
The research-base blocks allow the framework to adapt to different research needs without changing the underlying evidence method. Their purpose is to preserve consistency across the research stage while ensuring that each research base has a clear analytical logic, sufficient coverage, and direct value for the later planning-document stage.
Descriptive research produces a structured evidence base that establishes what exists, what is happening, and which characteristics define the subject under examination.
Its purpose is to organize the available evidence into a clear factual picture of a situation, condition, event, system, organization, activity, or development. It emphasizes context, actors, characteristics, activities, relationships, developments, effects, constraints, and unresolved evidence.
The user selects descriptive research when the planning-document stage requires a broad and reliable account of the subject before further assessment begins. The research base should make the subject easy to scan while preserving relevant distinctions between established facts, reported claims, estimates, projections, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
Descriptive research provides factual orientation. It does not primarily compare multiple cases, explain why a specific outcome occurred, or determine what should be done.
Prompt block
Research framework:
- Research purpose: A clear, structured, and source-linked description of the selected subject.
- Object of inquiry: The situation, condition, event, system, organization, activity, or development established by the approved research questions.
- Central focus: What exists, what is happening, who or what is involved, and which characteristics define the subject.
- Analytical boundary: No systematic comparison of multiple cases, no primary explanation of a specific outcome, and no planning assessment, option, requirement, recommendation, or decision.
Executive Summary functions:
- Summary function 1: The most important facts about the current subject, condition, or situation.
- Summary function 2: The most important actors, characteristics, activities, relationships, and developments.
- Summary function 3: The most important effects, constraints, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
Required level-one chapters:
# Subject and Scope
- Focus: The identity, meaning, boundaries, components, and significance of the subject.
- Coverage: The relevant geographic, temporal, organizational, operational, technical, legal, political, economic, or other scope.
- Distinction: What is included, what is outside the approved scope, and which definitions are necessary to understand the evidence.
# Context and Environment
- Focus: The environment in which the subject exists or the situation occurs.
- Coverage: Relevant background conditions, external influences, institutional settings, geographic factors, operating conditions, and wider developments.
- Distinction: Persistent contextual conditions and temporary circumstances.
# Actors and Relationships
- Focus: The persons, organizations, institutions, states, groups, systems, or other actors relevant to the subject.
- Coverage: Roles, responsibilities, interests, activities, dependencies, interactions, cooperation, competition, and conflict.
- Distinction: Documented relationships, reported relationships, and relationships that remain uncertain.
# Characteristics and Capabilities
- Focus: The observable features, structures, functions, capacities, resources, processes, and limitations that define the subject.
- Coverage: Relevant qualitative and quantitative characteristics.
- Distinction: Demonstrated characteristics, officially reported characteristics, estimates, and unresolved characteristics.
# Activities and Developments
- Focus: The documented activities, events, changes, trends, and milestones relevant to the current picture.
- Coverage: Recent activity, historical development where necessary, changes in direction, expansion, reduction, adaptation, and emerging developments.
- Distinction: Completed events, ongoing developments, announced plans, and projected developments.
# Effects and Patterns
- Focus: The observable consequences, outcomes, recurring patterns, and relationships associated with the subject.
- Coverage: Direct and indirect effects across the dimensions relevant to the approved situation.
- Distinction: Documented effects, reported effects, correlations, disputed effects, and effects that remain uncertain.
# Constraints and Unresolved Evidence
- Focus: The factors that limit, shape, or complicate the subject and the available understanding of it.
- Coverage: Dependencies, vulnerabilities, resource limits, legal constraints, organizational limits, technical restrictions, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Distinction: Constraints affecting the subject and limitations affecting the available public evidence.
Comparative research produces a structured evidence base that establishes factual similarities and differences among two or more defined cases.
Its purpose is to organize equivalent or sufficiently comparable evidence across the selected cases. It emphasizes case definition, common comparison dimensions, case-specific context, measurable characteristics, observed results, recurring patterns, and limits to direct comparison.
The user selects comparative research when the planning-document stage requires a reliable understanding of how systems, organizations, technologies, doctrines, activities, countries, programs, or other cases differ. The research base should present the cases consistently without forcing equivalence where definitions, conditions, measurements, or evidence differ.
Comparative research documents similarities and differences. It does not automatically rank the cases, identify a preferred case, create options, or recommend a course of action.
Prompt block
Research framework:
- Research purpose: A consistent, structured, and source-linked comparison of the defined cases.
- Objects of inquiry: The cases and comparison dimensions established by the approved research questions.
- Central focus: How the cases are similar or different according to common dimensions and available evidence.
- Analytical boundary: No automatic ranking, preferred case, planning option, recommendation, or assumption that every case or dimension permits direct comparison.
Executive Summary functions:
- Summary function 1: The most important characteristics shared by the examined cases.
- Summary function 2: The most consequential differences among the examined cases.
- Summary function 3: The most important comparison limits, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
Required level-one chapters:
# Cases and Comparison Scope
- Focus: The identity, boundaries, relevance, and intended role of each case within the comparison.
- Coverage: The cases included, relevant timeframes, applicable environments, and comparison boundaries.
- Distinction: Included cases, excluded cases, and cases for which available evidence is incomplete.
# Comparison Basis
- Focus: The common definitions, dimensions, indicators, units, timeframes, and evidence standards used across the comparison.
- Coverage: The basis on which similarities and differences can be examined consistently.
- Distinction: Directly comparable dimensions, partially comparable dimensions, and dimensions that cannot be compared reliably.
# Context of the Cases
- Focus: The environmental, organizational, operational, technical, legal, political, economic, and historical context of each case.
- Coverage: Conditions that may affect characteristics, performance, activities, or outcomes.
- Distinction: Differences inherent to the cases and differences produced by their surrounding conditions.
# Characteristics and Structures
- Focus: The relevant features, components, organization, scale, resources, functions, maturity, and design of each case.
- Coverage: Equivalent evidence for each case where available.
- Distinction: Demonstrated characteristics, reported characteristics, estimates, and missing information.
# Activities and Observed Performance
- Focus: The documented use, operation, implementation, testing, employment, or activity of each case.
- Coverage: Observed performance, output, reliability, effectiveness, capacity, cost, and other relevant measures.
- Distinction: Observed results, controlled test results, official claims, independent estimates, and projected performance.
# Similarities, Differences, and Patterns
- Focus: The major similarities, differences, recurring patterns, and distinctive features found across the cases.
- Coverage: Findings that emerge from applying the common comparison dimensions.
- Distinction: Consistent patterns, isolated differences, contextual effects, and findings that remain disputed.
# Comparison Limits and Unresolved Evidence
- Focus: The factors that restrict the validity, completeness, or interpretation of the comparison.
- Coverage: Differences in definitions, measurement methods, test conditions, reporting practices, source quality, data availability, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Distinction: Actual case differences and apparent differences caused by incompatible or incomplete evidence.
Explanatory research produces a structured evidence base that examines why an observed outcome, difference, success, failure, pattern, event, or development occurred.
Its purpose is to organize evidence concerning possible causes, contributing factors, mechanisms, conditions, sequences, competing explanations, and counterevidence. It emphasizes what the available evidence supports, contradicts, qualifies, or leaves unresolved.
The user selects explanatory research when the planning-document stage requires more than a description of the subject. The research base should define the result that requires explanation, reconstruct the relevant sequence, examine plausible explanations, and preserve distinctions among correlation, contribution, attribution, and documented causation.
Explanatory research establishes what the evidence can and cannot explain. It does not convert explanations into planning assessments, options, requirements, recommendations, or decisions.
Prompt block
Research framework:
- Research purpose: A structured, source-linked examination of the explanations for the observed result.
- Object of inquiry: The outcome, difference, success, failure, pattern, event, or development established by the approved research questions.
- Central focus: Which factors, mechanisms, conditions, and sequences may explain the observed result.
- Analytical boundary: No conversion of explanatory findings into a planning assessment, option, requirement, recommendation, decision, or preferred outcome.
Executive Summary functions:
- Summary function 1: The most important facts about the observed result and the sequence surrounding it.
- Summary function 2: The explanations and mechanisms most strongly supported by the available evidence.
- Summary function 3: The most important counterevidence, competing explanations, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
Required level-one chapters:
# Observed Result and Scope
- Focus: The exact outcome, difference, success, failure, pattern, event, or development requiring explanation.
- Coverage: Its boundaries, timeframe, context, observable features, and significance.
- Distinction: What has been established, what has been claimed, and what remains uncertain about the result itself.
# Context and Preceding Conditions
- Focus: The relevant environment and conditions that existed before or during the observed result.
- Coverage: Organizational, operational, technical, political, legal, economic, geographic, social, and historical conditions.
- Distinction: Background conditions, enabling conditions, constraints, and circumstances that may be unrelated.
# Sequence of Events and Decisions
- Focus: The chronology of relevant events, actions, decisions, changes, and turning points.
- Coverage: Developments preceding, accompanying, and immediately following the observed result.
- Distinction: Documented sequence, disputed sequence, inferred sequence, and missing chronological evidence.
# Candidate Explanations
- Focus: The principal causes, contributing factors, mechanisms, triggers, and external influences proposed by available sources.
- Coverage: Each plausible explanation identified through the approved research questions and the available evidence.
- Distinction: Direct causes, contributing factors, enabling conditions, triggers, background conditions, and unsupported assertions.
# Supporting Evidence and Mechanisms
- Focus: The evidence supporting each candidate explanation and the mechanism connecting the proposed factor to the observed result.
- Coverage: Documented causal links, repeated associations, sequence evidence, process evidence, and relevant comparative observations.
- Distinction: Correlation, contribution, attribution, mechanism, and documented causation.
# Competing Explanations and Counterevidence
- Focus: Alternative explanations and evidence that weakens, contradicts, or limits the principal explanations.
- Coverage: Conflicting interpretations, contrary cases, absent expected effects, source disagreements, and alternative mechanisms.
- Distinction: Evidence against an explanation, evidence supporting another explanation, and evidence that does not discriminate between them.
# Explanatory Limits and Unresolved Evidence
- Focus: The conditions under which explanations may apply and the issues that remain unresolved.
- Coverage: Necessary conditions, sufficient conditions, context dependence, uncertainty, disagreement, missing evidence, and unresolved causal relationships.
- Distinction: Explanations strongly supported by evidence, explanations partially supported, explanations contradicted, and explanations that cannot be evaluated with available public evidence.
The research-base review prompt identifies meaningful additional research directions after completion of the research base. It uses the completed research base to understand the subject, determine what is already covered, and identify related areas that could add value before or during the planning-document stage.
The prompt does not audit, verify, correct, score, approve, reject, or rewrite the completed research base. It also does not check individual citations, repeat sufficiently covered subjects, conduct new research, or develop planning assessments, options, requirements, recommendations, decisions, or preferred outcomes.
The output organizes additional research directions under five fixed sections: Priority Additional Research, Closely Related Research Areas, Enabling and Limiting Factors, Adjacent Actors, Cases, and Contexts, and Broader Optional Research. Each direction appears under a specific level-two heading and contains exactly three bullets explaining what should be researched, why it is relevant, and what value it could provide to the planning-document stage.
The research-base review prompt supports optional expansion of the research effort without treating the completed research base as defective or incomplete. Its purpose is to expose useful adjacent lines of inquiry that the user or a later internal process may choose to pursue.
Prompt
Instructions:
- Answer in English.
- Do not perform a web search.
- Use clear, direct, professional language.
- Use active voice.
- Do not use en dashes or em dashes.
- Use only straight double quotation marks "".
- Use the completed research base as the primary context for identifying additional research directions.
- Focus on additional research in closely related topic areas.
- Do not audit, verify, correct, rewrite, approve, reject, or score the research base.
- Do not check individual citations or sources.
- Do not repeat research directions that are already covered sufficiently in the research base.
- Do not develop planning assessments, options, requirements, recommendations, decisions, or preferred outcomes.
Input:
- The approved situation description defines the subject, focus, boundaries, constraints, uncertainties, and exclusions.
- The approved research questions define the original scope and object of inquiry.
- The selected research-base block defines the research approach and analytical structure.
- The completed research base provides the detailed subject understanding needed to identify additional research directions.
- The intended planning-document type may provide orientation for identifying research that could add value to the next stage.
Task:
- Use the completed research base to understand the topic and identify meaningful additional research directions.
- Keep each direction closely connected to the approved situation description and the intended planning-document stage.
- Identify research directions that add new value without repeating subjects already covered sufficiently.
- Use "Priority Additional Research" for directions most likely to materially affect the planning-document stage.
- Use "Closely Related Research Areas" for subjects directly connected to the approved situation that could deepen or extend the available understanding.
- Use "Enabling and Limiting Factors" for conditions, dependencies, resources, structures, policies, technologies, or constraints that may shape the approved situation or the later planning work.
- Use "Adjacent Actors, Cases, and Contexts" for related actors, comparable cases, mechanisms, environments, or contexts that could provide useful perspective on the approved situation.
- Use "Broader Optional Research" for relevant but less directly necessary directions that could broaden understanding or support the planning-document stage.
- Include weakly covered areas, unresolved disagreements, uncertainties, or evidence gaps only when they lead to a meaningful additional research direction.
- Do not audit, verify, correct, rewrite, approve, reject, or score the completed research base.
- Do not draft a revised research base.
- Do not draft new research questions as a numbered question set.
Research-direction requirements:
- Each level-two heading must represent one distinct new research direction.
- Create only research directions that add meaningful value.
- Do not create a direction merely to fill a section.
- The number of level-two headings under each level-one heading is flexible.
- A level-one section may contain no level-two heading when no meaningful research direction belongs there.
- Do not repeat or substantially duplicate a research direction across sections.
- When a direction could fit under more than one section, place it under the most specific and useful heading.
- Keep each direction sufficiently focused to support a separate Deep Research task.
- Keep each direction closely connected to the completed research base or the intended planning-document stage.
Explanation of each research direction:
- Use exactly three flat bullets under every created level-two heading.
- Use the first bullet to state what should be researched.
- Use the second bullet to explain why the research is relevant.
- Use the third bullet to explain what additional value the research could provide to the planning-document stage.
- Write one complete sentence per bullet.
- Do not use nested bullets.
- Do not include sources or citation numbers.
- Do not include a final recommendation on whether the additional research should be conducted.
Output structure:
- Use exactly five level-one Markdown headings in the following order.
- Use "# Priority Additional Research" as the first heading.
- Use "# Closely Related Research Areas" as the second heading.
- Use "# Enabling and Limiting Factors" as the third heading.
- Use "# Adjacent Actors, Cases, and Contexts" as the fourth heading.
- Use "# Broader Optional Research" as the fifth heading.
- Create specific and informative level-two headings beginning with "##" for each research direction.
- Do not use level-three headings.
- Do not place bullets directly under a level-one heading.
- Do not use tables.
- Do not use narrative paragraphs.
- Do not include commentary before or after the five required sections.
Section purpose:
- "Priority Additional Research" contains the additional research directions most likely to materially affect the planning-document stage.
- "Closely Related Research Areas" contains subjects directly connected to the central topic that would deepen or extend the existing understanding.
- "Enabling and Limiting Factors" contains conditions, dependencies, resources, structures, policies, technologies, or constraints that may shape the subject across several areas.
- "Adjacent Actors, Cases, and Contexts" contains related actors, comparable cases, mechanisms, environments, or contexts that could provide a useful external perspective.
- "Broader Optional Research" contains relevant but less directly necessary research directions that could broaden understanding or support later work.
Approved situation description:
USERINPUT
Approved research questions:
USERINPUT
Selected research-base block:
USERINPUT
Completed research base:
USERINPUT
Intended planning-document type, if already selected:
USERINPUT
The planning-document prompt transforms the reviewed research base into a structured and professionally written planning document.
Its purpose is to synthesize the research, develop relevant analysis, and organize the result according to the selected planning-document block. It should preserve the distinction between evidence, model-supported reasoning, assumptions, options, and recommendations.
The prompt is used after the research base has been reviewed and approved. It combines the approved situation description, the reviewed research base, and the selected planning-document block to define the document's purpose, analytical focus, structure, and expected content.
The resulting document should provide a substantial external planning input that is coherent, well supported, and suitable for further professional use. It should not present itself as a final military plan, official decision, or substitute for protected internal planning.
Prompt
Instructions:
- Answer in English.
- Use clear, direct, professional language.
- Use active voice.
- Do not use en dashes or em dashes.
- Use only straight double quotation marks "".
- Treat the approved situation description as the binding scope of the planning document.
- Use the approved research questions and completed research base as the factual foundation.
- Apply the selected planning-document block consistently.
- Produce a structured planning document for later internal review, refinement, and protected planning.
- Do not present the document as an approved policy, official plan, authorized decision, or binding direction.
- Do not perform new research.
- Do not introduce facts, figures, events, actors, capabilities, or developments that are not supported by the completed research base.
- Do not include citations, source numbers, hyperlinks, footnotes, endnotes, or a Sources chapter.
Input:
- The approved situation description defines the subject, focus, boundaries, constraints, uncertainties, and exclusions.
- The approved research questions define the issues investigated during the research stage and preserve the specific object of inquiry.
- The completed research base provides the facts, claims, estimates, projections, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps available for planning analysis.
- The selected planning-document block defines the planning-document type, purpose, required level-one chapters, chapter functions, required coverage, and document-specific boundaries.
- Additional user guidance may define priorities, assumptions, intended audience, decision level, planning horizon, or other requirements.
- Additional user guidance must not override the approved situation description unless the user explicitly changes the scope.
Task:
- Develop the planning document within the approved situation and selected planning-document type.
- Use the completed research base as the factual foundation for all descriptions and analysis.
- Preserve the specific object of inquiry established by the approved research questions.
- Organize the document according to the exact level-one chapters defined in the selected planning-document block.
- Examine each required aspect through topic-specific level-two sections.
- Structure every level-two section through Situation, Assessment, Consequences, and Proposed Decisions.
- Develop concrete and decision-relevant analysis without presenting any proposed decision as approved.
- Preserve material disagreements, uncertainties, limitations, and evidence gaps when they affect the analysis or proposed decisions.
- Avoid unnecessary repetition between chapters, sections, and content types.
- Produce an output that can be scanned quickly and reused directly in a later internal planning process.
Use of the research base:
- Use the completed research base as the sole factual evidence base.
- Do not conduct additional web searches or external research.
- Do not invent or assume missing evidence.
- Do not convert uncertain, disputed, estimated, or projected information into established fact.
- Preserve the evidentiary meaning of facts, claims, estimates, projections, disagreements, uncertainties, and evidence gaps.
- Use relevant findings from different research-base chapters when they support the same planning topic.
- Distinguish factual description from analytical interpretation.
- Distinguish analytical interpretation from consequences.
- Distinguish consequences from proposed decisions.
- When the research base does not establish required information, reflect the resulting uncertainty or limitation in the relevant section.
- Do not reproduce the research base as a condensed research report.
Writing format:
- Use Markdown internally.
- Use level-one, level-two, and level-three Markdown headings.
- Use flat bullets under level-three headings.
- Use numbered lists only when actual order, sequence, priority, stages, or ranked decisions must be shown.
- Do not use narrative paragraphs.
- Do not use tables.
- Do not use nested bullets.
- Write one complete sentence per bullet or numbered item.
- Keep each bullet focused on one point.
- Keep the wording concise, specific, and independently understandable.
- Do not rely on surrounding bullets to complete the meaning of a sentence.
- Do not include introductory text directly under a level-one or level-two heading.
- Do not place bullets directly under a level-one or level-two heading.
Overall structure:
- Use the structure defined by the selected planning-document block.
- Use exactly seven level-one chapters.
- Use level-two sections to divide each level-one chapter into coherent planning topics.
- Use the four required level-three sections under every level-two section.
- Do not add a title page, table of contents, preface, introduction, conclusion, annex, appendix, or Sources chapter.
- Do not add content outside the required three-level structure.
Level-one sections:
- Use the seven level-one chapters defined in the selected planning-document block.
- Use the exact level-one chapter titles and order defined in the selected planning-document block.
- Begin every level-one chapter with "#".
- Do not add, remove, rename, combine, or reorder level-one chapters.
- Treat the level-one chapters as distinct substantive aspects of the planning problem.
- Do not use the level-one chapters as a sequence of Situation, Assessment, Consequences, and Proposed Decisions.
- Ensure that each level-one chapter covers the purpose and required subjects defined for it in the selected planning-document block.
- Avoid unnecessary overlap between level-one chapters.
Level-two structure:
- Create level-two sections according to the topics required to cover each level-one chapter.
- Begin every level-two section with "##".
- Create level-two headings that are specific, concise, and informative.
- Ensure that each level-two section addresses one coherent planning topic.
- Do not include content-type labels in level-two headings.
- A level-one chapter may contain multiple level-two sections.
- Create as many level-two sections as required for sufficient planning detail.
- Create only level-two sections that improve coverage, clarity, or separation of planning topics.
- Do not create level-two sections merely to fill the structure.
- Avoid unnecessary fragmentation into minor or repetitive topics.
- Avoid using the same level-two topic in more than one level-one chapter unless the different treatment is necessary and clearly distinct.
- Do not include introductory text or bullets directly under a level-two heading.
Level-three structure:
- Every level-two section must contain all four required level-three headings.
- Use "### Situation" as the first level-three heading.
- Use "### Assessment" as the second level-three heading.
- Use "### Consequences" as the third level-three heading.
- Use "### Proposed Decisions" as the fourth level-three heading.
- Use the four level-three headings in this exact order.
- Do not omit, rename, combine, or reorder the four level-three headings.
- Keep the four content types separate.
- Do not place Situation content under Assessment, Consequences, or Proposed Decisions.
- Do not place Assessment content under Situation, Consequences, or Proposed Decisions.
- Do not place Consequences content under Situation, Assessment, or Proposed Decisions.
- Do not place Proposed Decisions under Situation, Assessment, or Consequences.
- Use flat bullets or a numbered list under each level-three heading.
- Do not place narrative paragraphs under a level-three heading.
Situation:
- Describe the relevant condition as it appears.
- Include relevant scope, actors, structures, capabilities, activities, developments, relationships, constraints, and observable effects.
- Use only information supported by the completed research base.
- Preserve material uncertainty, disagreement, estimates, and projections.
- Do not explain causes.
- Do not make analytical judgments.
- Do not state consequences of inaction.
- Do not propose actions or decisions.
Assessment:
- Analyze the Situation content for the specific level-two topic.
- Examine causes, relationships, significance, relevance, limitations, dependencies, constraints, alternatives, feasibility, and impact as appropriate.
- Identify how the relevant factors interact.
- Explain why the subject matters to the planning problem.
- Consider competing interpretations when supported by the research base.
- Preserve material uncertainty and disagreement.
- Do not present proposed decisions as already selected or approved.
- Do not use the Assessment section merely to restate the Situation section.
Consequences:
- State what becomes unavoidable, unstable, weaker, slower, fragmented, exposed, delayed, more costly, or otherwise constrained if no relevant decision is made.
- Connect each consequence to the Situation and Assessment for the specific topic.
- Describe consequences at the level appropriate to the selected planning-document type.
- Include operational, organizational, technical, resource, temporal, strategic, or implementation consequences where relevant.
- Distinguish direct consequences from conditional or longer-term consequences.
- Preserve uncertainty where a consequence depends on assumptions, estimates, or projections.
- Do not select a course of action.
- Do not assign approval, authority, ownership, or responsibility unless the input explicitly establishes it.
Proposed Decisions:
- State concrete decisions proposed for consideration.
- Derive every proposed decision from the preceding Situation, Assessment, and Consequences.
- Write every Proposed Decision bullet using exactly this sentence structure: "We decide [concrete commitment], because this gives us [operational benefit], instead of [concrete rejected alternative], and accept that [concrete downside]."
- Begin every Proposed Decision bullet with "We decide".
- State one proposed decision in each bullet.
- Use the "concrete commitment" clause to state a binding choice, direction, priority, resource commitment, exclusion, accepted risk, requirement, or constraint.
- Use the "operational benefit" clause to state the specific benefit created by the decision.
- Use the "concrete rejected alternative" clause to identify a realistic alternative that the decision excludes.
- Use the "concrete downside" clause to state the cost, risk, limitation, delay, loss, dependency, or reduced flexibility accepted through the decision.
- Ensure that every proposed decision reduces options, commits resources, excludes an alternative, accepts risk, or creates a meaningful constraint.
- Do not omit any clause from the required sentence structure.
- Do not replace the required wording with synonyms or a different sentence pattern.
- Do not use vague intentions, aspirations, preferences, recommendations, or general objectives as proposed decisions.
- Do not present any proposed decision as approved, authorized, funded, assigned, or implemented.
- Do not repeat the same proposed decision in multiple sections unless the repetition is necessary to address a distinct aspect.
Bullet limits:
- Use no more than seven bullets or numbered items under any level-three heading.
- Treat seven items as a maximum, not a target.
- Use only the number of items required to develop the topic with sufficient detail.
- Do not create filler items.
- Do not compress materially different points into one bullet merely to remain below the limit.
- When a topic requires more detail than one level-two section can provide clearly, divide it into additional coherent level-two sections.
Consistency and progression:
- Ensure that the four level-three sections form a coherent progression within each level-two topic.
- Ensure that the Assessment analyzes the Situation presented in the same level-two section.
- Ensure that the Consequences follow from the Situation and Assessment presented in the same level-two section.
- Ensure that the Proposed Decisions respond to the Situation, Assessment, and Consequences presented in the same level-two section.
- Do not introduce a proposed decision that has no identifiable basis in the preceding content.
- Do not introduce new factual information for the first time in Assessment, Consequences, or Proposed Decisions.
- Avoid repeating identical wording across the four content types.
- Maintain consistency between related topics across the document.
- Resolve contradictions where the available input supports resolution.
- Preserve unresolved contradictions when the input does not support resolution.
Output format:
- Output only the complete planning document.
- Place the entire planning document inside one fenced code block.
- Begin the content inside the fenced code block with the first level-one chapter defined in the selected planning-document block.
- Continue through all seven required level-one chapters in the defined order.
- Do not include any text before or after the fenced code block.
- Do not reproduce the prompt, input labels, approved research questions, research-base block, planning-document block, or completed research base.
- Do not include explanations, notes, disclaimers, or commentary.
Approved situation description:
USERINPUT
Approved research questions:
USERINPUT
Completed research base:
USERINPUT
Selected planning-document block:
USERINPUT
Additional user guidance, if provided:
USERINPUT
The planning-document blocks define the professional form and substantive structure of a planning document. They translate the common planning-document method into document-specific requirements while preserving the same analytical and decision-oriented framework.
Each block defines the planning purpose, planning object, central focus, planning boundary, and seven fixed level-one chapters. The level-one chapters represent distinct aspects of the planning problem rather than a sequence from situation to decision.
Within every level-one chapter, the model creates topic-specific level-two sections. Each level-two section then uses the fixed level-three sequence of Situation, Assessment, Consequences, and Proposed Decisions so that every topic is developed from factual condition through analytical interpretation to decision-oriented input.
The planning-document blocks allow the framework to adapt to different planning needs without forcing every subject into one generic structure. Their purpose is to maintain consistency throughout the planning stage while ensuring that each document has clear professional logic, sufficient coverage, and usable decision content.
A staff study examines a defined problem, assesses relevant factors, develops options, and provides a reasoned recommendation.
Its purpose is to support professional judgment and decision-making through a structured progression from problem definition to proposed action. It normally integrates situation analysis, evaluation criteria, alternatives, consequences, risks, and a recommendation.
The user selects a staff study when a decision-maker needs a clear assessment of a problem and a defensible proposal for what should happen next. The intended audience, decision level, scope, and required depth should be defined in the planning-document block.
The staff study shapes the final document around a decision problem rather than around research alone. It may contain strong recommendations, but the responsible military authority retains the final decision.
Prompt block
Planning-document type:
- Produce a structured staff study that examines a defined military problem, develops decision-relevant analysis, and presents proposed decisions for later internal consideration.
- Focus on the problem, the relevant actors and authorities, feasible alternatives, resource implications, risks, and implementation requirements.
- Keep the study within the approved situation and completed research base.
- Do not present the output as an approved staff position or command decision.
Planning framework:
- Planning purpose: Support a decision on a defined military, organizational, operational, or institutional problem
- Object of planning: The problem, its causes, affected functions, relevant actors, feasible alternatives, and required commitments
- Central focus: Determine what must be decided and what trade-offs accompany the available choices
- Planning boundary: Include only matters relevant to the defined problem and the decision level established by the inputs
Required level-one chapters:
# Strategic and Operational Context
Purpose:
- Establish the external and internal context that shapes the staff problem.
- Define why the issue matters at the relevant strategic, operational, institutional, or organizational level.
Required coverage:
- Relevant strategic conditions
- Relevant operational conditions
- Applicable policies, priorities, missions, and objectives established in the inputs
- Important external developments
- Important internal developments
- Time horizons and geographic boundaries
- Connections to other ongoing activities or planning efforts
Distinction:
- Focus on the wider context of the problem.
- Do not use this chapter to define the problem in detail, compare alternatives, or describe implementation arrangements.
# Problem Definition and Scope
Purpose:
- Define the specific problem that requires staff analysis and a proposed decision.
- Establish the boundaries of the study.
Required coverage:
- The central problem
- The observable effects of the problem
- The affected organizations, functions, missions, or capabilities
- The scale and extent of the problem
- The time period under consideration
- Included and excluded matters
- Important assumptions and unresolved elements that affect problem definition
Distinction:
- Focus on what the problem is and what the study covers.
- Do not use this chapter to develop alternatives or assign responsibilities.
# Stakeholders, Authorities, and Responsibilities
Purpose:
- Examine the actors, organizations, authorities, and responsibilities that shape the problem and its resolution.
Required coverage:
- Primary stakeholders
- Supporting stakeholders
- Decision authorities
- Legal, policy, command, administrative, or organizational authorities established in the inputs
- Existing responsibilities
- Overlapping or unclear responsibilities
- Required coordination relationships
Distinction:
- Focus on who is involved, what authority exists, and how responsibilities interact.
- Do not use this chapter to examine general resources, alternative courses of action, or implementation sequencing.
# Constraints, Dependencies, and Assumptions
Purpose:
- Identify the conditions that limit, enable, or shape the available decisions.
Required coverage:
- Legal and policy constraints
- Operational constraints
- Organizational constraints
- Personnel constraints
- Resource constraints
- Technical constraints
- Time constraints
- Dependencies on other organizations, capabilities, decisions, or events
- Assumptions required for planning
- Uncertainties and evidence gaps that materially affect the study
Distinction:
- Focus on conditions that restrict or enable action.
- Do not use this chapter to compare complete alternatives or develop the implementation plan.
# Courses of Action and Alternatives
Purpose:
- Examine the principal ways the problem could be addressed.
Required coverage:
- Distinct courses of action or alternatives
- The defining features of each alternative
- The intended effect of each alternative
- Major differences between alternatives
- Relevant combinations or phased approaches
- Alternatives that should be excluded from further consideration
- Conditions under which an alternative becomes more or less suitable
Distinction:
- Focus on the available choices and their substantive differences.
- Do not use this chapter as the main location for detailed resource analysis, risk analysis, or implementation planning.
# Resources, Feasibility, and Risk
Purpose:
- Assess whether the relevant alternatives can be executed and sustained.
Required coverage:
- Personnel requirements
- Financial requirements
- Material and infrastructure requirements
- Information and technical requirements
- Training and readiness requirements
- Organizational feasibility
- Time required for execution
- Principal risks
- Risk interactions and dependencies
- Feasibility limits and trade-offs
Distinction:
- Focus on whether the alternatives are practical and what risks they create.
- Do not use this chapter to repeat the full description of each course of action or implementation sequence.
# Implementation and Decision Requirements
Purpose:
- Define the decisions, commitments, sequencing, and follow-on actions required to move from analysis to execution.
Required coverage:
- Required decision points
- Required commitments
- Required sequencing
- Required coordination
- Required authorities
- Required resource decisions
- Initial implementation stages
- Review points and conditions for adjustment
- Dependencies that must be resolved before execution
- Matters that require further internal planning
Distinction:
- Focus on what must be decided and what is required to begin implementation.
- Do not present the proposed decisions as approved or describe detailed execution beyond the available evidence.
A capability and procurement concept identifies a military need and describes how capabilities, systems, resources, and acquisition approaches could address it.
Its purpose is to connect an operational or organizational requirement with a coherent capability solution. It may consider doctrine, organization, training, materiel, personnel, infrastructure, interoperability, implementation, and procurement as components of a single development problem.
The user selects this document type when the starting point is a capability gap or military need rather than a specific technology. The document should explain the required effect, possible capability components, implementation dependencies, acquisition choices, and development path.
The concept does not assume that purchasing equipment is the only or preferred solution. It structures the movement from military need toward an integrated capability and procurement approach.
Prompt block
Planning-document type:
- Produce a structured capability and procurement concept that connects an operational need to capability choices, acquisition implications, integration requirements, and fielding decisions.
- Focus on the capability effect required rather than assuming a specific platform, system, supplier, or procurement path unless established by the inputs.
- Address the full capability system, including doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, facilities, information, and sustainment where relevant.
- Do not present the output as an approved requirement, acquisition program, procurement decision, or funding commitment.
Planning framework:
- Planning purpose: Support decisions on the development, acquisition, integration, and fielding of a military capability
- Object of planning: The capability need, required effects, possible capability concepts, enabling elements, acquisition factors, and fielding path
- Central focus: Determine which capability commitments are required and what alternatives, costs, risks, and limitations accompany them
- Planning boundary: Include only capability elements connected to the approved situation, research base, and intended decision level
Required level-one chapters:
# Capability Need and Operational Context
Purpose:
- Define the operational or institutional need that creates the capability requirement.
Required coverage:
- Relevant missions and tasks
- Existing operational conditions
- Current capability limitations
- Threats, hazards, or challenges
- Affected forces and organizations
- Geographic and temporal conditions
- The operational effect of the current capability gap
- Connections to existing capability portfolios
Distinction:
- Focus on why a capability is needed.
- Do not use this chapter to prescribe detailed performance requirements or select a system concept.
# Required Effects and Performance
Purpose:
- Define what the capability must achieve and how effective performance should be understood.
Required coverage:
- Required operational effects
- Required mission outcomes
- Core functions
- Performance characteristics
- Readiness and availability expectations
- Capacity and scale
- Survivability and resilience expectations
- Interoperability expectations
- Environmental and operating conditions
- Performance trade-offs
Distinction:
- Focus on effects and performance rather than specific products or procurement solutions.
- Do not use this chapter to describe acquisition pathways or detailed support structures.
# Capability Options and System Concepts
Purpose:
- Examine alternative ways to deliver the required effects.
Required coverage:
- Materiel options
- Non-materiel options
- Combined capability concepts
- Platform, system, service, or organizational concepts
- Centralized and distributed approaches
- Domestic, allied, commercial, or multinational options where supported
- Incremental and transformational approaches
- Modularity and adaptability
- Excluded or unsuitable concepts
- Major trade-offs between concepts
Distinction:
- Focus on the substantive capability alternatives.
- Do not use this chapter as the primary location for detailed integration, sustainment, or acquisition analysis.
# Integration and Interoperability
Purpose:
- Examine how the capability must connect to existing forces, systems, organizations, and partners.
Required coverage:
- Command and control integration
- Data and information integration
- Technical interoperability
- Procedural interoperability
- Joint integration
- Multinational integration
- Organizational integration
- Infrastructure dependencies
- Security and assurance requirements
- Integration risks and transition challenges
Distinction:
- Focus on connections between the capability and its operating environment.
- Do not use this chapter to repeat general performance requirements or acquisition timelines.
# Personnel, Training, and Support
Purpose:
- Define the human, organizational, training, and support system required to operate and sustain the capability.
Required coverage:
- Personnel numbers and profiles
- Skills and qualifications
- Recruiting or retention implications
- Individual and collective training
- Leadership and organizational requirements
- Maintenance and technical support
- Logistics and supply support
- Facilities and infrastructure
- Documentation and knowledge management
- Support dependencies
Distinction:
- Focus on the people and support system surrounding the capability.
- Do not use this chapter to examine procurement strategy or compare complete system concepts.
# Acquisition, Resources, and Industrial Factors
Purpose:
- Examine the means required to acquire or develop the capability.
Required coverage:
- Acquisition approaches
- Development and procurement pathways
- Budget and affordability considerations
- Cost drivers
- Schedule considerations
- Industrial capacity
- Supplier and supply-chain dependencies
- Sovereignty and security-of-supply considerations
- Commercial and technological dependencies
- Contracting, competition, and partnership considerations
- Acquisition risks
Distinction:
- Focus on how the capability can be obtained and resourced.
- Do not use this chapter to describe operational employment or detailed fielding arrangements.
# Fielding, Sustainment, and Capability Development
Purpose:
- Define how the capability could be introduced, sustained, improved, and governed over time.
Required coverage:
- Experimentation and testing
- Initial operating capability
- Full operating capability
- Phased fielding
- Transition from existing capabilities
- Sustainment model
- Upgrade and modernization path
- Configuration and obsolescence management
- Evaluation and review points
- Withdrawal or replacement of legacy capabilities
- Long-term capability governance
Distinction:
- Focus on the capability life cycle from introduction through continued development.
- Do not present detailed execution orders or assume that procurement approval has been granted.
A technology assessment examines an existing or emerging technology and identifies its maturity, military relevance, possible applications, limitations, and implications.
Its purpose is to begin with the technology and determine whether, where, and how it may create military value. It considers technical characteristics, maturity, adoption barriers, risks, dependencies, competing technologies, and possible operational or organizational effects.
The user selects a technology assessment when the military relevance of a technology is uncertain or when several possible applications require examination. The document should distinguish demonstrated capabilities from claims, projections, and model-supported inferences.
The technology assessment shifts from technology to potential military use cases rather than from an established military requirement to a solution. It may recommend experimentation, further research, capability development, procurement consideration, or no immediate action.
Prompt block
Planning-document type:
- Produce a structured military technology assessment that examines technological maturity, military relevance, performance, integration, limitations, comparative position, and adoption choices.
- Focus on the technology as a potential military enabler rather than treating technological novelty as sufficient value.
- Distinguish demonstrated performance from claims, estimates, and projections in the completed research base.
- Do not present the output as an approved technology program, acquisition decision, or operational employment authorization.
Planning framework:
- Planning purpose: Support decisions on whether, where, and how a technology should be investigated, developed, integrated, adopted, or limited
- Object of planning: The technology, its maturity, military applications, performance, enabling requirements, risks, alternatives, and adoption path
- Central focus: Determine the military value of the technology and the commitments required to exploit it responsibly
- Planning boundary: Include only applications and decisions supported by the approved situation and completed research base
Required level-one chapters:
# Technology and Development Status
Purpose:
- Establish what the technology is and how mature its development currently appears.
Required coverage:
- Core technological principles
- Main components
- Current development stage
- Demonstrated functions
- Laboratory, prototype, pilot, commercial, or operational use
- Relevant developers and institutions
- Development pace
- Dependencies on other technologies
- Maturity uncertainties
- Evidence gaps concerning actual performance or readiness
Distinction:
- Focus on the present state of the technology.
- Do not use this chapter to make the main military-value assessment or prescribe adoption.
# Military Applications and Operational Relevance
Purpose:
- Examine the missions, tasks, and military problems for which the technology may be relevant.
Required coverage:
- Potential military applications
- Relevant operational functions
- Supported missions and tasks
- Applicable domains and environments
- Potential users
- Operational conditions that increase or reduce relevance
- Connections to existing concepts and capabilities
- Near-term and longer-term applications
- Applications that lack sufficient relevance or evidence
Distinction:
- Focus on where the technology may matter militarily.
- Do not use this chapter to provide the full technical performance assessment or integration plan.
# Performance and Technical Characteristics
Purpose:
- Examine the characteristics that determine whether the technology can deliver useful military effects.
Required coverage:
- Functional performance
- Reliability
- Accuracy
- Range, speed, capacity, scale, or throughput where relevant
- Availability and endurance
- Environmental tolerance
- Security and assurance
- Human-system interaction
- Data and computing requirements
- Performance variability
- Demonstrated and projected performance
- Relevant technical trade-offs
Distinction:
- Focus on how the technology performs.
- Do not use this chapter to examine the complete organizational adoption process or comparative strategic position.
# Integration and Enabling Requirements
Purpose:
- Define what must exist for the technology to function within military systems and organizations.
Required coverage:
- System integration
- Data integration
- Network and communication requirements
- Infrastructure
- Power and physical support
- Personnel and specialist skills
- Training
- Doctrine and procedures
- Command and control
- Security accreditation and assurance
- Legal and policy enablers
- Organizational changes
Distinction:
- Focus on the conditions required to employ the technology.
- Do not use this chapter as the primary location for technology risks or experimentation planning.
# Limitations, Vulnerabilities, and Risks
Purpose:
- Examine factors that could limit, disrupt, exploit, or undermine military use of the technology.
Required coverage:
- Technical limitations
- Reliability limitations
- Environmental limitations
- Adversary countermeasures
- Cyber and information vulnerabilities
- Supply-chain vulnerabilities
- Safety risks
- Legal and policy risks
- Ethical and human-control concerns where relevant
- Escalation or proliferation risks
- Dependency and lock-in risks
- Risks created by immature evidence
Distinction:
- Focus on what can fail, be exploited, or create unacceptable exposure.
- Do not use this chapter to repeat the general technology description or detailed adoption sequence.
# Comparative Position and Development Path
Purpose:
- Compare the technology with relevant alternatives and assess its likely development direction.
Required coverage:
- Existing military alternatives
- Non-technological alternatives
- Competing technologies
- Relative strengths and weaknesses
- Cost and complexity differences
- Maturity differences
- Domestic and international development positions
- Adversary or competitor activity where supported
- Likely development paths
- Potential convergence with other technologies
- Conditions that could change the comparative position
Distinction:
- Focus on comparison and future development.
- Do not use this chapter to prescribe the experimentation program or fielding sequence.
# Experimentation, Adoption, and Scaling
Purpose:
- Define how military organizations could test, evaluate, adopt, govern, and expand use of the technology.
Required coverage:
- Experimentation objectives
- Test environments
- Evaluation criteria
- User involvement
- Prototype and pilot activities
- Conditions for continued development
- Conditions for limiting or stopping development
- Adoption pathways
- Incremental and accelerated approaches
- Scaling requirements
- Governance and review points
- Transition into capability development or procurement
Distinction:
- Focus on the path from assessment to controlled military use.
- Do not assume adoption, procurement, or operational authorization has been approved.
A doctrine document develops or revises principles and approaches that guide how military forces prepare, organize, and conduct activities.
Its purpose is to translate experience, evidence, concepts, and anticipated requirements into coherent guidance for military practice. It may address terminology, principles, roles, relationships, processes, conditions, limitations, and implications for the employment or preparation of force.
The user selects a doctrine document when the problem concerns how military activity should be understood, organized, or conducted across multiple individual situations. The intended level, audience, authority, and relationship to existing doctrine should be clearly defined.
The doctrine document should provide durable guidance rather than a one-time recommendation for a single case. It may propose new doctrine or revisions, but formal adoption remains the responsibility of the relevant military authority.
Prompt block
Planning-document type:
- Produce a structured doctrine-development input that defines how forces could understand, organize, coordinate, employ, support, and adapt military activity within the approved scope.
- Focus on general principles, relationships, and employment logic rather than detailed orders for a specific operation.
- Connect doctrinal proposals to the completed research base and the intended military problem.
- Do not present the output as approved doctrine, formal command direction, or an authorized concept of operations.
Planning framework:
- Planning purpose: Support the development or revision of doctrine for a defined military function, mission, capability, or operating problem
- Object of planning: The principles, roles, relationships, employment methods, support arrangements, and adaptation mechanisms required for coherent military action
- Central focus: Determine how forces should understand and approach the subject while identifying the decisions and trade-offs required for doctrinal adoption
- Planning boundary: Remain at the doctrinal level and avoid operation-specific execution details unless needed to illustrate a general principle
Required level-one chapters:
# Operational Context and Purpose
Purpose:
- Define the operating problem, doctrinal need, and intended scope of the doctrine.
Required coverage:
- Relevant strategic and operational context
- The doctrinal problem
- Missions and tasks addressed
- Forces and organizations concerned
- Operating environments
- Time and geographic boundaries
- Existing doctrinal limitations
- Relationship to other doctrine
- Intended use of the doctrine
- Matters outside the doctrinal scope
Distinction:
- Focus on why the doctrine is needed and where it applies.
- Do not use this chapter to define all doctrinal principles or employment methods.
# Principles and Core Concepts
Purpose:
- Define the central ideas that should guide understanding and action.
Required coverage:
- Core doctrinal principles
- Central concepts
- Desired effects
- Key terms and distinctions
- Organizing logic
- Relationships between principles
- Conditions under which principles apply
- Tensions between principles
- Limits of generalization
- Concepts that should not be adopted
Distinction:
- Focus on the intellectual foundation of the doctrine.
- Do not use this chapter to assign detailed responsibilities or describe support arrangements.
# Roles, Responsibilities, and Command Relationships
Purpose:
- Define how command, authority, responsibility, and coordination should be organized.
Required coverage:
- Command roles
- Supporting roles
- Supported and supporting relationships
- Decision authorities
- Responsibilities by level or function
- Delegation
- Centralization and decentralization
- Coordination arrangements
- Liaison requirements
- Relationships with joint, multinational, civilian, or other partners
- Potential responsibility gaps or conflicts
Distinction:
- Focus on who directs, supports, coordinates, and executes.
- Do not use this chapter to describe the complete employment process or sustainment system.
# Employment and Execution
Purpose:
- Define how forces should apply the doctrine in military activity.
Required coverage:
- Employment methods
- Operational approaches
- Planning considerations
- Preparation
- Execution logic
- Sequencing
- Tempo
- Concentration and dispersion
- Adaptation during execution
- Decision points
- Relevant offensive, defensive, enabling, or supporting applications
- Boundaries between doctrine and operation-specific planning
Distinction:
- Focus on how the doctrine shapes action.
- Do not turn the chapter into an operation order or repeat command relationships in full.
# Coordination and Integration
Purpose:
- Define how the doctrinal subject connects with other functions, forces, domains, and partners.
Required coverage:
- Joint integration
- Multidomain integration
- Multinational coordination
- Interagency or civilian coordination where relevant
- Information sharing
- Data and technical interoperability
- Planning integration
- Synchronization
- Deconfliction
- Mutual support
- Dependencies on other capabilities or functions
Distinction:
- Focus on horizontal and vertical integration.
- Do not use this chapter to provide the full support and sustainment model.
# Support, Protection, and Sustainment
Purpose:
- Define the support conditions required to apply the doctrine effectively and continuously.
Required coverage:
- Logistics
- Personnel support
- Medical support
- Maintenance
- Infrastructure
- Communications and information support
- Intelligence support
- Force protection
- Cybersecurity and information assurance
- Resilience and redundancy
- Continuity under disruption
- Sustainment trade-offs
Distinction:
- Focus on maintaining and protecting doctrinal employment.
- Do not use this chapter to repeat general employment principles or training systems.
# Training, Evaluation, and Adaptation
Purpose:
- Define how the doctrine should be taught, tested, evaluated, revised, and institutionalized.
Required coverage:
- Individual education
- Collective training
- Leader development
- Exercises
- Experimentation
- Evaluation criteria
- Lessons collection
- Validation
- Feedback mechanisms
- Revision triggers
- Governance of doctrinal change
- Adaptation to new threats, technology, and operational experience
Distinction:
- Focus on institutional learning and doctrinal evolution.
- Do not assume that the doctrine has already been approved or implemented.
A forecast and scenario analysis examines trends, uncertainties, and plausible future situations and derives implications for military planning.
Its purpose is to support preparation for developments that cannot be predicted with certainty. It identifies relevant drivers, assumptions, indicators, possible futures, discontinuities, and consequences for military capabilities or decisions.
The user selects this document type when future conditions matter more than a single current problem or defined alternative. The document may use several scenarios to test how different developments could affect operations, force design, technology, doctrine, or resource requirements.
The forecast and scenario analysis do not present a single future as certain. It expands planning awareness by showing which developments are plausible, which assumptions are fragile, and which preparations remain useful across several futures.
Prompt block
Planning-document type:
- Produce a structured forecast and scenario analysis that examines plausible future developments, critical uncertainties, alternative scenarios, resulting effects, and proposed preparedness decisions.
- Use forecasts and scenarios to support planning under uncertainty rather than to predict one certain future.
- Preserve the distinction between established trends, source-based projections, planning assumptions, and model-generated scenario logic.
- Do not present any scenario as a confirmed prediction or an approved planning basis.
Planning framework:
- Planning purpose: Support decisions that improve preparedness, resilience, and adaptability across plausible future conditions
- Object of planning: The forecast subject, relevant drivers, actors, uncertainties, alternative scenarios, effects, and preparedness choices
- Central focus: Determine which decisions remain valuable across scenarios and which decisions depend on specific future conditions
- Planning boundary: Stay within the approved planning horizon, geographic scope, and object of inquiry
Required level-one chapters:
# Forecast Subject and Planning Horizon
Purpose:
- Define what is being forecast and establish the boundaries of the analysis.
Required coverage:
- The forecast subject
- The planning problem
- The planning horizon
- Geographic scope
- Strategic or operational level
- Relevant missions and functions
- Baseline conditions
- Included and excluded developments
- Key definitions
- Limits of the forecast
Distinction:
- Focus on the scope and baseline of the analysis.
- Do not use this chapter to develop full scenarios or preparedness measures.
# Drivers, Trends, and Indicators
Purpose:
- Examine the forces and observable developments that may shape the future.
Required coverage:
- Political drivers
- Military drivers
- Economic drivers
- Social drivers
- Technological drivers
- Environmental drivers
- Legal or institutional drivers
- Long-term trends
- Emerging developments
- Leading and lagging indicators
- Trend interactions
- Potential trend breaks
Distinction:
- Focus on factors that influence future change.
- Do not use this chapter to define actor strategies or build complete scenarios.
# Actors, Interests, and Relationships
Purpose:
- Examine the actors whose choices and interactions may shape future developments.
Required coverage:
- Principal actors
- Secondary actors
- Actor interests
- Objectives
- Capabilities
- Constraints
- Decision-making patterns
- Alliances and partnerships
- Competition and conflict
- Dependencies
- Potential shifts in behavior
- Relationships that could drive escalation, cooperation, fragmentation, or realignment
Distinction:
- Focus on actor behavior and interaction.
- Do not use this chapter to repeat general trends or describe scenario outcomes in full.
# Critical Uncertainties and Assumptions
Purpose:
- Identify the uncertain variables and planning assumptions that most strongly affect the future.
Required coverage:
- Critical uncertainties
- High-impact variables
- Assumptions required for analysis
- Assumptions supported by evidence
- Assumptions with weak support
- Unresolved disagreements
- Evidence gaps
- Uncertainty interactions
- Signposts that would confirm or weaken assumptions
- Conditions that could invalidate the analysis
Distinction:
- Focus on what remains uncertain and what the analysis must assume.
- Do not use this chapter to select a preferred future or present complete scenarios.
# Scenarios and Alternative Developments
Purpose:
- Develop distinct, plausible future conditions that test relevant planning choices.
Required coverage:
- A baseline or continuation scenario where appropriate
- Alternative scenarios driven by critical uncertainties
- Scenario logic
- Key developments within each scenario
- Actor behavior
- Turning points
- Escation and de-escalation paths
- Cross-domain effects
- Scenario-specific indicators
- Conditions that distinguish one scenario from another
- Low-probability, high-impact developments where relevant
Distinction:
- Focus on coherent alternative futures rather than isolated events.
- Do not present scenarios as predictions or use this chapter as the main location for preparedness decisions.
# Operational and Strategic Effects
Purpose:
- Examine how the scenarios and forecast developments could affect military interests, missions, forces, and institutions.
Required coverage:
- Strategic effects
- Operational effects
- Effects on missions and tasks
- Effects on force posture
- Effects on readiness
- Effects on capability requirements
- Effects on alliances and partnerships
- Effects on resources and sustainment
- Effects on infrastructure and resilience
- Effects on decision timelines
- Cross-scenario effects
- Scenario-specific effects
Distinction:
- Focus on what the alternative futures mean for military planning.
- Do not use this chapter to repeat complete scenario narratives or provide the full preparedness approach.
# Preparedness, Adaptation, and Decision Requirements
Purpose:
- Define the decisions and preparations required to remain effective across plausible futures.
Required coverage:
- No-regret decisions
- Scenario-dependent decisions
- Hedging measures
- Adaptation options
- Resilience measures
- Readiness measures
- Capability and resource implications
- Monitoring requirements
- Decision triggers
- Review points
- Reversible and irreversible commitments
- Conditions for changing the planning approach
Distinction:
- Focus on preparedness and decision requirements across uncertainty.
- Do not present any scenario as certain or any proposed decision as approved.
The planning-document review prompt identifies meaningful additional directions for a planning document after its completion. It uses the completed planning document to understand the planning problem, recognize what has already been developed, and identify separate documents that could complement, extend, enable, or follow the existing work.
The prompt does not audit, verify, correct, score, approve, reject, or rewrite the completed planning document. It also does not evaluate the quality of the proposed decisions, develop revised planning content, or produce the additional planning documents themselves.
The output organizes additional planning-document directions under five fixed sections: Priority Follow-On Planning Documents, Complementary Planning Perspectives, Implementation and Enabling Documents, Adjacent Planning Problems, and Broader Optional Planning Documents. Each direction appears under a specific level-two heading and contains exactly three bullets explaining what document should be developed, why it is connected to the completed planning document, and what distinct value it could provide to the later internal planning process.
The planning-document review prompt supports continued development of the planning effort without treating the completed document as defective or incomplete. Its purpose is to expose useful follow-on and adjacent planning products that the user or a later internal process may choose to develop.
Prompt
Instructions:
- Answer in English.
- Do not perform a web search.
- Use clear, direct, professional language.
- Use active voice.
- Do not use en dashes or em dashes.
- Use only straight double quotation marks "".
- Use the completed planning document as the primary context for identifying additional planning-document directions.
- Focus on additional planning documents that could complement, extend, enable, or follow the completed planning document.
- Do not audit, verify, correct, rewrite, approve, reject, or score the completed planning document.
- Do not evaluate whether the proposed decisions are correct, feasible, sufficient, or preferable.
- Do not repeat planning-document directions that are already covered sufficiently in the completed planning document.
- Do not develop new planning assessments, consequences, proposed decisions, or preferred outcomes.
Input:
- The approved situation description defines the subject, focus, boundaries, constraints, uncertainties, and exclusions.
- The completed planning document provides the detailed planning context needed to identify additional planning-document directions.
- Additional user guidance may provide orientation for identifying useful follow-on, complementary, enabling, adjacent, or optional planning documents.
Task:
- Use the completed planning document to understand the planning problem and identify meaningful additional planning-document directions.
- Keep each direction closely connected to the approved situation description and the later internal planning process.
- Identify planning-document directions that add distinct value without repeating subjects already covered sufficiently.
- Use "Priority Follow-On Planning Documents" for documents most likely to be needed next because the completed planning document exposes an important unresolved planning requirement.
- Use "Complementary Planning Perspectives" for documents that examine the same subject through a different planning-document type or professional perspective.
- Use "Implementation and Enabling Documents" for documents that develop execution, authorities, resources, integration, experimentation, training, sustainment, governance, or other enabling requirements.
- Use "Adjacent Planning Problems" for separate but closely connected planning problems that require their own planning document.
- Use "Broader Optional Planning Documents" for relevant but less directly necessary documents that could broaden or support later planning.
- Include unresolved issues, dependencies, constraints, uncertainties, or planning gaps only when they lead to a meaningful additional planning-document direction.
- Do not audit, verify, correct, rewrite, approve, reject, or score the completed planning document.
- Do not draft a revised planning document.
- Do not draft the additional planning documents.
- Do not produce revised Situation, Assessment, Consequences, or Proposed Decisions sections.
Planning-document direction requirements:
- Each level-two heading must represent one distinct additional planning document.
- Create only planning-document directions that add meaningful and distinct value.
- Do not create a direction merely to fill a section.
- The number of level-two headings under each level-one heading is flexible.
- A level-one section may contain no level-two heading when no meaningful planning-document direction belongs there.
- Do not repeat or substantially duplicate a planning-document direction across sections.
- When a direction could fit under more than one section, place it under the most specific and useful heading.
- Keep each direction sufficiently focused to support a separate planning-document task.
- Identify the most suitable planning-document type when it can be determined from the available context.
- Do not force a direction into one of the existing planning-document types when another document form would be more appropriate.
- Keep each direction closely connected to the completed planning document or the later internal planning process.
Explanation of each planning-document direction:
- Use exactly three flat bullets under every created level-two heading.
- Use the first bullet to state what planning document should be developed and its central subject.
- Use the second bullet to explain why the document is connected to the completed planning document.
- Use the third bullet to explain what distinct value the document could provide to the later internal planning process.
- Write one complete sentence per bullet.
- Do not use nested bullets.
- Do not include sources or citation numbers.
- Do not include a final recommendation on whether the additional planning document should be developed.
Output structure:
- Use exactly five level-one Markdown headings in the following order.
- Use "# Priority Follow-On Planning Documents" as the first heading.
- Use "# Complementary Planning Perspectives" as the second heading.
- Use "# Implementation and Enabling Documents" as the third heading.
- Use "# Adjacent Planning Problems" as the fourth heading.
- Use "# Broader Optional Planning Documents" as the fifth heading.
- Create specific and informative level-two headings beginning with "##" for each planning-document direction.
- Do not use level-three headings.
- Do not place bullets directly under a level-one heading.
- Do not use tables.
- Do not use narrative paragraphs.
- Do not include commentary before or after the five required sections.
Section purpose:
- "Priority Follow-On Planning Documents" contains the additional planning documents most likely to be required next.
- "Complementary Planning Perspectives" contains documents that examine the same subject through a different planning-document type or professional perspective.
- "Implementation and Enabling Documents" contains documents required to develop execution, authorities, resources, integration, experimentation, training, sustainment, governance, or other enabling conditions.
- "Adjacent Planning Problems" contains separate but closely connected planning problems that require their own planning document.
- "Broader Optional Planning Documents" contains relevant but less directly necessary documents that could broaden understanding or support later internal planning.
Output format:
- Output only the five required sections.
- Place the entire output inside one fenced code block.
- Do not include any text before or after the fenced code block.
- Do not reproduce the prompt, input labels, approved situation description, completed planning document, or additional user guidance.
- Do not include explanations, notes, disclaimers, or commentary.
Approved situation description:
USERINPUT
Completed planning document:
USERINPUT
Additional user guidance, if provided:
USERINPUT