Measuring, Reporting, and Developing Command-and-Control Continuity in Peacetime
The preceding papers established that C2-CI is the most consequential single variable in denial-based deterrence, functioning as a coefficient on recovery tempo. C2-CI has remained, however, a theoretical construct—well-defined conceptually but not translatable into systematic measurement. This paper addresses that gap. We decompose C2-CI into four measurable sub-dimensions—Structural Redundancy (R), Autonomous Decision Quality (A), Decision Latency (D), and Synchronization Recovery (S)—and develop concrete measurement approaches for each, a four-level exercise protocol, and an investment prioritization framework.
Keywords: C2-CI measurement · command and control resilience · exercise protocol · investment prioritization · decision latency · autonomy quality · synchronization recovery
Working Paper No. 2026-03 established C2-CI as the organizing construct for command and control resilience, decomposed into Decision Lag (DL), Autonomy Quality (AQ), and Resynchronization Capacity (RC). Working Paper No. 2026-04 demonstrated that C2-CI functions as a coefficient on recovery tempo. Both papers noted that C2-CI's practical value depends on whether it can be measured.
This toolkit is addressed to practitioners rather than theorists—it is written for operational planners, training staff, and defence investment decision-makers. It is explicitly not a measurement standard. The parameters proposed here are analytically grounded initial proposals that should be treated as hypotheses subject to revision as measurement programmes accumulate data.
A C2-CI construct that cannot be measured cannot be managed. The shift from theory to measurement is not a minor technical step—it is the condition for C2-CI to deliver its analytical value.
Structural Redundancy captures the degree to which C2 architecture provides independent pathways for command continuity. It is a structural property of the force architecture, determined by planning and investment decisions rather than training. Three indicators contribute: independent C2 nodes (number capable of exercising authority independently), communication path diversity (technically independent pathways available), and single point of failure index (fraction of critical C2 functions with no alternative).
No single disruption event should be capable of severing all command continuity pathways. Minimum: three independent C2 nodes, three technically independent communication pathways.
Autonomous Decision Quality captures the degree to which units make decisions aligned with commander's intent when communications are severed. It is assessed through structured exercise observation during communication disruption phases, combining decision rate under disruption and decision alignment assessment. A is the most organizationally demanding sub-dimension to develop and the most challenging to measure.
Decision Latency captures the degree to which communication disruption extends the time required for decisions. It is the most directly measurable sub-dimension: sensor-to-decision time and decision-to-action time are measured in both normal and disruption conditions. The D coefficient: D = T_disrupted / T_normal. Target: D < 2.5.
Synchronization Recovery captures the speed and accuracy with which units restore shared situational awareness following a communication blackout. Two indicators: S_t (time from communication restoration to agreed situational picture) and S_a (accuracy of restored picture vs. independent ground truth). Target: S_t < 4 hours, S_a > 80%.
C2-CI = 0.25 × R_norm + 0.30 × A_norm + 0.25 × D_norm + 0.20 × S_norm
Where each sub-dimension is normalized to [0,1] before combination. A weighting of 30% for A reflects its role as the most consequential variable in Class A scenarios (rapid decapitation), per the ATM analysis.
Score interpretation: 0.80–1.00 = High C2-CI (force multiplier fully effective); 0.60–0.79 = Adequate; 0.40–0.59 = Marginal (multiplier effect uncertain); below 0.40 = Critical gap.
The lowest-intensity C2-CI assessment event. Requires no field resources; conducted with unit leadership in a classroom setting. The exercise controller presents a communication disruption scenario; participants walk through their decision process without actual disruption. Output: R assessment from architecture review; qualitative A and D gap identification.
Exercises command staff under simulated operational conditions including specified communication degradation. Physical deployment is not required. Output: D coefficient for command-level decisions; S_t and S_a for command resynchronization.
The primary measurement event for A and D at the unit level. Runs in three phases: baseline (normal C2, minimum 8 hours), disruption (communication severed according to scenario), and recovery (communication restored and S measured directly). Output: A_norm with decision rate and alignment scores; D coefficient from field conditions.
The full C2-CI assessment exercise, generating composite scores for participating units. Integrates T2 and T3 elements across multiple units simultaneously, enabling measurement of both unit-level and inter-unit coordination dimensions. Recommended frequency: annually for formation-level units.
Investment options assessed against the four sub-dimensions, listed in priority order for a unit with an undeveloped C2-CI baseline:
Alberts, D.S., & Hayes, R.E. (2003). Power to the edge. CCRP Publication Series.
Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT Press.
van Creveld, M. (1985). Command in war. Harvard University Press.
Weick, K.E., & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007). Managing the unexpected (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
This paper is part of the DRD series. Companion papers available in the ACI supplements archive.