candidate projects
COMMAND DECISION
Which two pilots improve sortie reliability without outrunning the data boundary?
High-tempo flying operations with strong safety value, fragmented local data and one deliberately attractive classified-data trap.
SCENARIO01
Culture MixedData Mixed maturityTempo SurgeDelivery Contractor-augmented
notional budget
controlled-data gates
READINESS VS RISK
Bubble size represents adjusted annual value. Hover or focus to identify a project.
Candidate Classified boundary
Hover, tap or keyboard-focus a bubble
COMMANDER DECISION WORKBENCH
Challenge the recommendation. Change the values, estimates and portfolio.
Every figure is synthetic. Changes recalculate the recommendation locally and are not sent to an external AI service.
01 / COMMAND INTENT
What are you building for?
COMMAND VALUE WEIGHTS1 = low • 5 = decisive
PORTFOLIO ASSUMPTIONSSWAG estimates
02 / PORTFOLIO TEST
Your portfolio vs. the heuristic
Selected3projects
First-year cost$1.7M$130K uncommitted
Adjusted value$780Kannual SWAG
Labor released2,950hours / year
This mix is inside the notional budget. Funding fit does not clear classification, privacy, RMF or contracting gates.
03 / SYNTHETIC ADOPTION-READY PROJECTS
Data authority first. Value and technical estimates second.
Start at the left: a likely classification is only a planning hypothesis. The named authorities decide what may actually be collected, combined and fed to a model.
3 selected
| Likely data classification | Who determines what can be collected + fed to AI | Project / task | Where data is stored | CMMC / authorization gate for sustainment | Task frequency + volume | Existing structured data | Collect + clean | Algorithm development + testing | Stakeholder buy-in | Pilot + sustainment | First-year cost | Adjusted annual value | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified • CUI when paired with sortie timing | Flight Safety data owner + Airfield Ops + OPSEC + AOFlight Safety owns event data; Airfield Operations validates operational use; OPSEC determines whether schedule joins create controlled information; AO approves the decision-support connection. | Bird-strike risk forecastFlight safety | Public weather and wildlife data may remain open; operational joins stay inside an approved IL4/5 boundary. | Contractor path: contract-specified CMMC Level 2 status. Government path: RMF/ATO and an approved IL4/5 boundary appropriate to the information. | Hourly forecast; pre-launch review8.7K forecast cycles; 300–2K observations | 67%BASH logs, radar/weather, seasonality, habitat and movement windows | $120Kscenario SWAG | $210Kdevelop + test SWAG | 4/5Supportive | 5 months$70K/yr sustainment | $540Kclean + dev + integrate + sustain | $289K500 labor hr + risk value | Fund pilot86Current recommendation |
| Unclassified • CUI/critical-infrastructure review | BCE pavement owner + installation security + system AOThe Base Civil Engineer owns the maintenance purpose and source records; security/OPSEC reviews whether location and condition aggregates warrant control; the system owner and AO approve ingestion and hosting. | Runway patch prioritizationCivil engineering | Inspection images and work orders in an approved NIPR/IL4 environment; precise vulnerability layers remain access-controlled. | Contractor path: contract-specified CMMC Level 2 status. Government path: RMF/ATO and an approved IL4/5 boundary appropriate to the information. | Weekly inspections; after weather or damage events1.5–4K observations; 120–350 work orders | 72%Pavement condition index, imagery, work orders, traffic and weather | $140Kscenario SWAG | $180Kdevelop + test SWAG | 4/5Supportive | 5 months$80K/yr sustainment | $560Kclean + dev + integrate + sustain | $280K950 labor hr + risk value | Fund pilot7989% estimate confidence |
| CUI candidate • OPSEC aggregation review | Airfield information owner + security/OPSEC + system AOThe airfield manager or designated information owner confirms mission purpose and access; the authorized holder/security office validates CUI and OPSEC treatment; the system owner, ISSM and Authorizing Official approve the technical feed and boundary. | Airfield FOD detectionFlightline safety | Raw imagery retained at an approved edge boundary; event metadata stored in an authorized DoD IL4/5 environment. Do not send operational imagery to a public model endpoint. | Contractor path: contract-specified CMMC Level 2 status. Government path: RMF/ATO and an approved IL4/5 boundary appropriate to the information. | Continuous during airfield operations18–35M image frames; 12–25K movements | 58%Fixed/vehicle camera frames, sweep logs, incident records, weather | $260Kscenario SWAG | $420Kdevelop + test SWAG | 4/5Supportive | 7 months$140K/yr sustainment | $1.1Mclean + dev + integrate + sustain | $391K1,700 labor hr + risk value | Fund pilot7876% estimate confidence |
| CUI • maintenance/readiness | MXG information owner + logistics data steward + OPSEC + AOMaintenance and logistics owners authorize use; data stewards validate definitions; OPSEC reviews readiness aggregation; the system owner and AO approve interfaces. | Turnaround delay predictorMaintenance operations | Authorized IL5 mission-data platform; outputs restricted by role and aggregation level. | Contractor path: contract-specified CMMC Level 2 status. Government path: RMF/ATO and an approved IL4/5 boundary appropriate to the information. | Every aircraft turnaround3–18K maintenance events | 81%Discrepancies, parts, manning, elapsed times and equipment availability | $210Kscenario SWAG | $360Kdevelop + test SWAG | 3/5Mixed | 8 months$150K/yr sustainment | $1.1Mclean + dev + integrate + sustain | $340K2,100 labor hr + risk value | Fund pilot7789% estimate confidence |
| CUI/FCI candidate • logistics and contract data | LRS information owner + contracting officer + OPSEC + AOLogistics owns demand data; the contracting officer determines contract information and flowdown; OPSEC reviews readiness inference; system owner/AO approve the boundary. | Consumables demand forecastLogistics | Approved IL4/5 analytics environment; vendor exchange limited to the contract-authorized subset. | Contractor path: contract-specified CMMC Level 2 status. Government path: RMF/ATO and an approved IL4/5 boundary appropriate to the information. | Daily forecast; weekly reorder review5–60K line items | 88%Issues, stock levels, lead times, demand codes and vendor performance | $130Kscenario SWAG | $170Kdevelop + test SWAG | 4/5Supportive | 5 months$80K/yr sustainment | $570Kclean + dev + integrate + sustain | $211K1,500 labor hr + risk value | Fund pilot7794% estimate confidence |
| CUI candidate • operational records | Airfield manager + records manager + security + AOAirfield Operations owns the workflow; records and security officials establish retention and control markings; system owner and AO approve the approved-language-model boundary. | Airfield inspection note assistantAirfield operations | Approved IL4/5 generative-AI environment; prompts and outputs retained only under approved policy. | Contractor path: contract-specified CMMC Level 2 status. Government path: RMF/ATO and an approved IL4/5 boundary appropriate to the information. | Each shift and formal inspection700–2K inspection narratives | 49%Inspection forms, discrepancy codes, prior notes and governing checklists | $70Kscenario SWAG | $95Kdevelop + test SWAG | 4/5Supportive | 3 months$45K/yr sustainment | $300Kclean + dev + integrate + sustain | $92K1,350 labor hr + risk value | Fund pilot7578% estimate confidence |
| CUI • Privacy | MPF information owner + Privacy Office + system AOThe Military Personnel Flight defines the minimum data required; the Privacy Office validates authority, notices and minimization; records management, the system owner, ISSM and AO approve retention and system connections. | Newcomer inprocessing copilotPersonnel support | Approved DoD productivity or case-management environment with role-based access, retention controls and no training on member records. | Contractor path: contract-specified CMMC Level 2 status. Government path: RMF/ATO and an approved IL4/5 boundary appropriate to the information. | Per arrival, transfer and separation1–8K member transactions | 76%Checklists, appointment slots, orders metadata, FAQs and case status | $90Kscenario SWAG | $130Kdevelop + test SWAG | 3/5Mixed | 4 months$70K/yr sustainment | $510Kclean + dev + integrate + sustain | $222K4,200 labor hr + risk value | Build evidence7488% estimate confidence |
| SECRET boundary candidate • SCG controls | Controlling OCA/SCG + security manager + classified-system AOThe commander may sponsor the question but cannot redefine the classification boundary. Derivative classifiers apply the governing SCG; the security manager and classified-system AO determine authorized processing and connections. | Mission-generation bottleneck optimizerOperations integration | Accredited classified enclave appropriate to the SCG; no transfer to the unclassified simulator or commercial endpoints. | CMMC does not authorize classified processing. Use the controlling SCG/OCA, cleared users and facilities, and an accredited classified environment; NISP requirements apply when contractors participate. | Per flying window or mission package1–8K integrated planning events | 84%Mission schedule, weapon/load constraints, maintenance and crew availability | $520Kscenario SWAG | $680Kdevelop + test SWAG | 2/5Needs coalition | 16 months$320K/yr sustainment | $2.3Mclean + dev + integrate + sustain | $647K3,300 labor hr + risk value | Gate first4182% estimate confidence |
Scroll horizontally to compare the complete evidence chain. Select projects in the first column; inspect a row to edit its estimates.
04 / GATES THAT REMAIN HUMAN
The simulator recommends where to investigate—not what is authorized.
Classification, CUI designation, purpose limitation, records handling, contracting requirements and system authorization stay with accountable officials. A high score cannot waive a gate.
How the recommendation works
28% command-value fit, 22% data/technical readiness, 16% governance, 12% stakeholder readiness, 12% cost efficiency and 10% time-to-pilot, plus an 8-point orientation fit. Classified-boundary concepts are capped at 41 and labeled “Gate first.”
Information authority
The functional information owner defines the mission need and minimum data. The authorized holder, security manager, OPSEC, Privacy, records, legal and disclosure officials determine controls as applicable. An OCA and the controlling Security Classification Guide govern classified information.
System boundary
The system owner, ISSM and Authorizing Official decide whether the model, interfaces and storage can operate inside an approved RMF/ATO boundary and appropriate DoD cloud impact level. Vendor terms never substitute for authorization.
Contractor sustainment
Public data alone does not trigger CMMC. FCI and CUI on contractor information systems follow the contract’s required CMMC level and assessment status. CMMC is not authorization to process classified information and does not replace the government system ATO.
Operational release
The commander or process owner accepts operational risk only within delegated authority. Named operators retain safety, maintenance, personnel and release decisions; models remain advisory until separately approved for a higher level of autonomy.