For the next forty minutes, team leaders presented their tactical assessments of the training scenario, a complex operation in contested waters with multiple opposing forces and shifting political constraints. Each presentation followed predictable patterns of conventional naval doctrine, earning perfunctory nods from Westfield.

When Selena’s turn came, she moved to the central display without flourish. Her voice was measured and clear, carrying just far enough to reach every ear without straining. “Our analysis identified three critical vulnerabilities in the standard approach,” she began, highlighting sections of the tactical map with precise gestures. “By redirecting our surveillance assets here and here, we create an intelligence advantage while reducing exposure of our primary vessels.”

Several senior officers nodded appreciatively as she outlined an alternative approach that minimized personnel risk while maximizing operational effectiveness. Her solution elegantly balanced competing priorities in ways the conventional doctrine couldn’t accommodate. “Furthermore, by establishing these data collection points,” she continued, marking additional locations, “we can maintain persistent intelligence gathering even if enemy forces shift unexpectedly.”