UNCLASSIFIED // FOR EDUCATIONAL AND ANALYTICAL PURPOSES // CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE STATECRAFT AND STRATEGIC POLICY // WP-2026 // MDO-01 v3.0—
ScenarioTaiwan Strait — Crisis
AdversaryPRC
PhaseCrisis
T1 ViabilityRelatively Higher
T2 ViabilityConditional
T3 ViabilityConstrained
MDO-01 ANALYTIC CONSOLEorganizes analytic considerations derived from MDO-01 v3.0 · does not determine, recommend, or prioritize courses of action·all scenario outputs are scenario-conditioned analytic assessments bounded by the public record
MDO-01 v3.0 · WP-2026
Multi-Domain Operations Doctrine
This interface organizes analytic considerations derived from MDO-01 v3.0. It does not determine or recommend courses of action. All confidence labels, friction points, and limit statements derive from the source paper. Click any Key Judgment to expand the analytical sub-elements.
MDO Core Mechanism
FM 3-0 (October 2022) codifies MDO as the governing joint warfighting concept for peer adversary operations. The central mechanism is convergence: simultaneous cross-domain effects timed to operate faster than adversary decision cycles. The public record supports this characterization as doctrine. Whether the institutional force can execute it under actual peer-adversary contested conditions is the principal uncertainty.
02Penetrate & Disintegrate A2/AD — defeat sensor-to-shooter networks through cross-domain fires and cyber effects
03Exploit Freedom of Action — apply decisive operations once freedom of action is restored; conditions under which this task is achievable are scenario-dependent
Six Governing Key Judgments — click to expand
Part II · Analytic Model
Three-Track Comparator
Side-by-side comparison across seven analytical dimensions. Relative viability varies by scenario constraints — no single track is determinative, and all three tracks are frequently concurrent in documented campaigns. This is an analytic organizing construct derived from publicly documented authorities — not a formally codified U.S. decision architecture.
Viability bars indicate relative analytical standing under general conditions. Track viability varies by adversary, phase, coalition posture, attribution sufficiency, and legal-review status. No track is assessed as dominant independent of scenario conditions. Use the Scenario Builder to apply specific condition parameters. The public record does not establish that any track is preferred over others across all contingencies.
Part II · Section 2.3
Authorities and Friction Map
Legal predicate, execution chain, approval burden, and documented friction points for each track. The three-track model implies procedural neatness that does not reflect documented interagency practice. Authority columns document the predicate statutory framework — not the definitive operational authorization map, which may differ in classified operational orders.
Documented Interagency Friction Points
Part VI · Adversary Context
Adversary Context — Constraints on the Analytic Model
How each adversary's doctrine, escalation logic, and institutional constraints may affect track viability, friction, and principal uncertainties under stated scenario conditions. Assessments are bounded by the public record. The available evidence does not resolve how each adversary's doctrine translates into operational execution in any specific contingency.
Part VII · Campaign Workflow
Four-Phase Campaign Viewer
Track activities, sanctions integration, escalation triggers, and off-ramps by campaign phase. Phase transitions are not automatic — they are conditioned on decision-authority thresholds and coalition alignment that the public record does not fully establish for any specific contingency.
Analytic Discipline
Confidence and Uncertainty Matrix
Every major analytic claim with confidence level, evidentiary basis, principal counterargument, and reassessment conditions. Claims are categorized as Documented Doctrine, Public-Law Authority, or Analytically Inferred. The matrix is intended to make uncertainty visible — not to imply that higher-confidence claims are operationally dispositive. Click any row to expand.
Part VII · Targeting Sequence
F2T2EA Targeting Workflow
Find–Fix–Track–Target–Engage–Assess. Decision conditions and off-ramps at each phase, drawn from JP 3-60 (January 2019). This module organizes publicly documented joint targeting doctrine. It does not constitute targeting guidance or operational planning support. Click any phase row to expand authority and friction detail.
Part IV · Case Evidence
Sanctions Case Validation
Three bounded mini-cases examining conditions under which multilateral sanctions may contribute to leverage or behavioral change. Each case explicitly limits causal attribution. No claim of decisiveness is asserted. The available evidence does not resolve whether sanctions integration is reliable across adversary types.
Decision Support Tool
Scenario Builder
Configure scenario parameters to generate a scenario-conditioned track viability assessment. Outputs reflect the paper's analytic framework and confidence constraints. This tool organizes analytic considerations — it does not determine, recommend, or prioritize courses of action. All outputs are bounded by the public record and labeled scenario-conditioned.
Scenario-Conditioned Output
Configure Scenario
Scenario Conditions
Brief Generator
Export Analytic Brief
Generate a structured scenario-conditioned analytic snapshot based on current scenario configuration. Every generated brief includes confidence labels, friction points, limit statements, and a methodological limit block. Outputs are structured analytic snapshots — not recommendations, directives, or operational guidance.