Proposed pilot instrument · v0.1.0 · 16 October 2026

Thai team CPX assessment: baseline, immediate post-training and follow-up

A project-proposed pilot linking OBE outcomes to team knowledge (K), skills (S), ethics (E) and observable conduct (C). Collect evidence before training, immediately afterwards, and at months 6 and 12, with a separate record of transfer when real incidents occur naturally.

Version 0.1.0 has not undergone validity or reliability testing, certification or institutional approval. It is not an individual diagnostic or operational-readiness credential. Exercise scores do not establish real-incident effectiveness. The month 6/12 schedule, eight criteria and 0–3 anchors are project proposals, not research-validated schedules or standards. This website displays blank templates and collects no assessment or incident data.

Start with the assessor guide: prepare, observe, score and review
Use independent rating forms, check agreement and recheck with fresh cases

Connected knowledge domains

These connections follow the modules referenced by the rubric; they do not imply coverage of every specialist competence.

Follow the team and record what changes

T0 Before training

Before the teaching, training or improvement intervention being evaluated; record date, time and time zone.

Establish team baseline evidence without substituting retrospective post-training ratings.

  • Register team code, rubric version, coded roster/roles, prior training and current plans. Give consistent criterion and safety briefings across rounds.
  • Use unseen scenario A, offering all eight behavior opportunities. Two raters record independently before instruction begins.

Evidence to retain

  • Outcome–inject–evidence map, role table and timestamped T0 artifacts.
  • Separate rater forms, opportunity/prompting log and baseline profile.

T1 Immediately after training

Begin immediately after the specified training ends. Record training end, assessment start/end and actual elapsed interval; disclose any delay.

Observe post-training behavior separately from satisfaction and confidence.

  • Use fresh scenario B matched to A for opportunity, difficulty, information, resources and time; do not repeat the task or its answer.
  • Lock evidence and independent ratings before the AAR. Record instruction, prompting, breaks and fatigue.

Evidence to retain

  • T1 artifacts, independent/consensus ratings with reasons and criterion-by-criterion T0 comparison.
  • Improvement register with owners, due dates and evidence to verify.

M6 Month 6 follow-up

Target six months after training completion: a project proposal. Prespecify a scheduling window and report actual elapsed days.

Reobserve team behavior and verify improvement actions as separate outcomes.

  • Use fresh comparable scenario C. Check roster/role changes, refresher training, incidents and plan revisions since prior rounds.
  • Verify action closure separately from CPX scores. Use the separate form for eligible incidents; no incident or no opportunity is not failed transfer.

Evidence to retain

  • M6 evidence, criterion profile, follow-up/missing counts and reasons.
  • Action register and confounder history; authorized incident records where applicable.

M12 Month 12 follow-up

Target twelve months after training completion: a project proposal without demonstrated Thai team retention at this interval. Record planned window and actual date.

Examine continued behavior and improvement work while reporting follow-up limits.

  • Use fresh scenario D under the same blueprint. Distinguish the same team from the same organization and do not carry forward missing scores.
  • Review T0/T1/M6/M12 by criterion only for comparable pairs. Identify additional training, turnover and other events before interpreting trends.

Evidence to retain

  • Four-phase profile with denominators, missing-data codes and comparability limits.
  • Pilot report and version-revision proposals without inferring causality from score increases alone.

Prepare raters and comparable conditions

Agree outcomes and opportunities first

Map each criterion to its OBE outcome, inject, artifact and observation window. Prespecify simulated deadlines, disclose criteria and check language/format accessibility before T0. Module links are curriculum alignment, not validation evidence.

Use the team as the unit of analysis. Keep coded membership and roles outside public reporting. Record continuing members/total members and reasons for change so organizational continuity is not automatically called team continuity.

Verify Thai context and simulation boundaries

Have the responsible local authority check applicable provincial/district/local plans, orders and decision, approval, coordination and publication roles, including edition/date/clause, before use. DDPM plan pp.43 and 124 are reading entry points, not substitutes for local or incident-specific orders.

Mark all messages and artifacts exercise only. Controllers simulate external agencies; do not contact or task real agencies. Define how to stop for risk or a real emergency and keep data collection from disrupting response.

Independent raters and a consensus trail

Use at least two calibrated raters. Each records behavior, time, artifact code, opportunity and prompting, then rates without seeing the other rating. Where feasible mask prior scores and phase order; disclose when this is impossible.

Preserve both original forms before discussion. Compare evidence by criterion and record consensus, reasons and remaining disagreement without overwriting independent ratings. Calculate pre-consensus agreement with the number of paired ratings and handling of NO/NA.

Fresh scenarios and comparison

Build A–D from one blueprint, changing figures, information order and conditions requiring new reasoning. Review opportunity counts, time, complexity, workload and prompting through expert review/piloting. Retain scenario IDs and comparability rationale; equivalence is not assumed.

Record refreshers, other exercises, answer exposure, real incidents, resources, plan revisions and fatigue. Performance after other interventions is not retention attributable solely to initial training. Do not withhold needed training to preserve a research design.

Maintain evidence and data stewardship

Separate CPX, corrective-action, participant-report and incident files. Use codes, minimize data and store only in authorized institutional systems. Define custodian, access, retention/deletion and reuse permissions under applicable policy before collection. Do not upload personal or operational data to this website.

For research, obtain review and consent as required by the institution. Separate learning from individual punishment. Public reporting uses summaries assessed for reidentification risk and excludes codes that can be linked back to people.

Real incidents are a separate evidence stream

Use the incident form only for naturally occurring, authorized events. Link the trained behavior/criterion to an actual opportunity, specifying training content/date, continuing members and the proposed transfer mechanism. Separate contemporaneous records, later recollection and reviewer inference.

Seek use, non-use, unsuccessful adaptation and contradictory evidence. Allow no opportunity and insufficient evidence. Do not turn confidence into operational outcomes or claim CPX caused improvement without a supporting design.

Report a traceable profile

Report each K/S/E/C criterion with evidence and opportunities by phase. Show scheduled, followed and missing teams and reasons. Give actual comparable pairs and denominators. Separate AAR action closure from observed behavior and incident outcomes.

State rubric version, method changes and limits before interpreting trends. Do not use weighted totals, pass/fail cutoffs or readiness rankings without justification and validation. C concerns behavior in this context, not personality or personal worth.

Rubric for team behavior and artifacts

Expand each criterion for its outcome, evidence and level 0–3 anchors. Apply NO/NA using the rules below.

  • 0 = an observable, planned opportunity existed but the criterion behavior was not demonstrated. It does not stand for missing data, unseen behavior or absent opportunity.
  • NO = not observed, insufficient evidence or no opportunity: record why and the missing opportunity. NA = inapplicable to the role/scope as declared before the round: record the justification owner. Neither is zero or enters scored denominators.
  • Assign the highest anchor fully evidenced; level 3 includes level 2. Levels 2/3 require no solution coaching by controllers. Log all prompting. If the task omits a necessary opportunity, use NO with partial evidence rather than automatically awarding a low score.
  • Report eight criteria grouped as K/S/E/C without a total or cross-criterion mean. Show scored/8, NO/8 and NA/8 and each criterion’s observed opportunities.
  • Compare phases only for scored, comparable criterion pairs, showing pairs available/expected, roster and method changes. Do not impute missing values, turn NO/NA into zero or calculate percentage retention from ordinal 0–3 ratings.
  • Report pre-consensus exact agreement by criterion, separating paired 0–3 ratings from NO/NA pairs, with counts and disagreements. During piloting, prespecify ordinal agreement statistics and uncertainty estimates with methodological expertise.

K · Knowledge

TC-K1Explain roles and authority boundaries

Proposed team outcome

The team explains proposal, coordination and approval roles and the authority to verify before a decision.

EOC-K · EOC, common operating picture and crisis decisions

Evidence to examine

Checked role table, team explanation and timestamped response to an authority challenge.

Read assessor guidance for TC-K1

0
Given an opportunity, the team does not distinguish coordinator from approver or claims authority from the EOC label without checking.
1
Identifies some proposal and approval roles but not the plan/order to check or role limits.
2
Explains all proposal, coordination and approval roles in the task, citing organizer-checked edition/clause and remaining unknowns.
3
Meets level 2 and, when authority conditions change, explains decision implications, identifies verification/escalation roles and justifies a revised table.

Design rationale, not rubric validation: ddpm-plan · manchester-exercise-incident-transfer-2020

TC-K2Explain what an evidence item establishes

Proposed team outcome

The team links outcome, inject and evidence, distinguishing exercise ratings, self-report and incident evidence.

CPX-K · Design a CPX from intended outcomes

Evidence to examine

Outcome–inject–evidence map and explanation using three evidence examples.

Read assessor guidance for TC-K2

0
Given examples, makes no evidence–outcome link or claims confidence/exercise scores prove incident effectiveness.
1
Links one evidence type to an outcome but still confuses observation with report or omits limits.
2
Completes the task’s outcome–inject–artifact links and distinguishes observation, self-report and incident evidence with limits for each.
3
Meets level 2 and, with conflicting or missing evidence, identifies unsupported conclusions and proposes additional evidence for the specific question.

Design rationale, not rubric validation: swiss-pharmacy-ttx-followup-2026 · pediatric-virtual-ttx-followup-2019 · manchester-exercise-incident-transfer-2020 · california-clinic-exercise-transfer-2010

S · Skills

TC-S1Update the situation picture with a verification trail

Proposed team outcome

The team updates its COP while preserving provenance, time, versions and uncertainty.

EOC-S · EOC, common operating picture and crisis decisions

Evidence to examine

COP versions, discrepancy log, verification request and receipt times against prespecified deadlines.

Read assessor guidance for TC-S1

0
Given conflicting reports, does not update/check, double-counts or deletes prior information without a trail.
1
Updates figures or notes doubt but omits provenance, time, verification status or verification owner.
2
Preserves conflicting reports, records provenance/time/status, assigns verification and versions the update on evidence within the specified time.
3
Meets level 2 and traces the correction into the SITREP/decision, notifies users of the old version and confirms receipt of the correction.

Design rationale, not rubric validation: ddpm-plan · swiss-pharmacy-ttx-followup-2026

TC-S2Close the loop on task coordination

Proposed team outcome

The team coordinates requests and handovers with acknowledged ownership, status, deadlines and follow-up.

EOC-S · EOC, common operating picture and crisis decisions

Evidence to examine

Request/acknowledgment, open-task and handover read-back records with coded sender/receiver and times.

Read assessor guidance for TC-S2

0
Given a handover task, fails to send/identify a receiver or treats transmission as task completion without checking receipt.
1
Sends to an identified role but lacks acknowledged receipt or status/follow-up time.
2
Sends owner, status, deadline and constraints; receiver accurately reads back/acknowledges and the team follows up as scheduled.
3
Meets level 2 and, when contact/resources fail, reroutes coordination under the exercise agreement, confirms replacement ownership and retains open work at handover.

Design rationale, not rubric validation: ddpm-plan · manchester-exercise-incident-transfer-2020 · california-clinic-exercise-transfer-2010

E · Ethics

TC-E1Justify allocation with attention to those still waiting

Proposed team outcome

The team compares options and consequences for hard-to-reach groups without treating convenience as need.

EOC-E · EOC, common operating picture and crisis decisions

Evidence to examine

Two-option table, reasons/uncertainties, simulated representative input and follow-up for people waiting.

Read assessor guidance for TC-E1

0
Given evidence of an unreached group, omits those waiting and the adverse consequences of allocation.
1
Mentions those waiting but offers one option or claims fairness without comparing consequences.
2
Compares at least two options by need/access, identifies recipients and those waiting, explains reasons/uncertainty and assigns follow-up.
3
Meets level 2 and, after a group representative challenges it, checks evidence and revises or justifies the choice with mitigation and a review time.

Design rationale, not rubric validation: pediatric-virtual-ttx-followup-2019 · ddpm-plan

TC-E2Communicate within evidence and data limits

Proposed team outcome

The team routes simulated messages through agreed review without overstating success or disclosing unnecessary data.

EOC-E · EOC, common operating picture and crisis decisions

Evidence to examine

Draft/issued exercise message, evidence review and simulated approval trail, including response to a sensitive-data request.

Read assessor guidance for TC-E2

0
Given a review opportunity, releases unsupported success claims or unnecessary identifying data.
1
Reduces data or corrects some claims but omits uncertainty/time or the agreed review step.
2
Separates verified/pending facts, timestamps the message, limits data and records simulated review/approval before release.
3
Meets level 2 and, on error or an excessive-access request, sends a correction to prior recipients or offers an aggregate alternative, recording reasons and receipt.

Design rationale, not rubric validation: ddpm-plan · who-aar-2019

C · Character

TC-C1Hear challenges and explain revisions

Proposed team outcome

The team invites and hears dissent, checks evidence and preserves reasons when revising decisions.

EOC-C · EOC, common operating picture and crisis decisions

Evidence to examine

Behavior notes at a challenged report and a decision review: at least two planned opportunities.

Read assessor guidance for TC-C1

0
Given a challenge, blocks or ignores it and does not examine its reasoning/evidence.
1
Listens after controller prompting or changes without recording reasons; consistent behavior across two opportunities is not shown.
2
At both opportunities, invites challenge, checks evidence and records why it changes or retains the decision without personal blame.
3
Meets level 2 and applies the learning to related work, invites the challenger to check shared understanding and confirms unresolved concerns are followed up.

Design rationale, not rubric validation: who-simex-2017 · who-aar-2019

TC-C2Own improvements through recheck

Proposed team outcome

The team converts feedback into owned actions with evidence and rechecks, disclosing unfinished work.

CPX-C · Design a CPX from intended outcomes

Evidence to examine

Feedback action register and follow-up within a standardized simulated interval; real between-month action closure is stored separately.

Read assessor guidance for TC-C2

0
Given feedback and a follow-up window, creates no action or claims closure without evidence.
1
Lists improvements but omits owner, due date, verification evidence or the offered follow-up.
2
Assigns owner, deadline and evidence, follows up on schedule and accurately distinguishes closed, open and blocked actions.
3
Meets level 2 and tests the correction with a recheck task, keeps evidence and reopens ineffective actions with reasons, owner and a new review time.

Design rationale, not rubric validation: pediatric-virtual-ttx-followup-2019 · california-clinic-exercise-transfer-2010 · who-aar-2019

Record independent ratings, then review evidence

The download includes the guide, rubric, wave context record and incident form. The CSV contains 32 rows (4 waves × 8 criteria) for use within your institution. This website receives or stores no assessment data.

Team / organization code / instrument version
Use codes; keep the roster separately in authorized storage.
Wave / date and time / actual elapsed time
T0, T1, M6 or M12; record reference training date, actual observation date and deviations.
Scenario version / observation opportunities / target times
Record injects, difficulty, resources and target times set before exercise; reference the checked local plan.
Team continuity and intervening factors
Retained/total members, changed roles, refreshers, incidents and plan revisions.
Rater A / B codes and calibration
Record calibration and conflicts; score independently before comparison.
Evidence per criterion and rater
Inject time, observed behavior, statement/decision and traceable document code; exclude personal data.
Original scores / disagreement / reasoned resolution
Preserve original A/B scores and evidence; identify reviewer and reasons, retaining disagreements.
Missing data / NO / NA and reasons
Explain missed waves; do not carry scores forward. Declare NA scope beforehand.
Safety concerns and escalation route
Use approved reporting channels separately from scores; do not publish sensitive details.
Improvement / responsible role / follow-up date
Specify closure evidence and recheck owner; unfinished actions remain open.

Open MD in a text or Markdown editor and CSV in a spreadsheet. Use both to preserve context. Score fields accept 0, 1, 2, 3, NO or NA with reasons; blank is never zero.

Scenario blueprint: flooding in a fictional province

All narrative, figures, places and times below are fictional for piloting the rubric, not operational orders or real allocation advice. Organizers must create comparable A–D versions and verify local plans/authority before use.

Simulated roles cover situation information, district/local liaison, public health, resources, community representation and public communication. Assign simulated proposers/approvers from the checked plan; do not assume all liaisons command all agencies. Raters remain outside the team; controllers play external agencies.

Start with reported needs of 40 kits in community A and 30 in B, against 50 in stock; these needs require verification. Prespecify acknowledgment, COP and handover deadlines. Include evidence/authority explanation tasks and an action-recheck interval to cover all eight criteria.

  1. 08:00: ask the team to explain the organizer-checked role table and outcome–inject–evidence map. Supply three examples: a confidence survey, a CPX observer record and a later incident account conflicting with a timestamped log. Ask what each can/cannot establish and what additional evidence is needed.
  2. 08:10: B now reports 45 kits, without count time or whether it includes the original 30. Preserve both reports and request verification. At 08:20 the controller confirms a total of 45 with source/time; inspect the COP and implications for options.
  3. 08:25: available vehicles cannot use the B route. The community representative reports mobility constraints and challenges sending everything to A. Compare options, people waiting, constraints and authority checks; no fixed allocation answer is supplied.
  4. 08:30: a controller card states that the new request has different approval conditions, with an extract from the checked plan/exercise agreement. Ask the team to explain implications, verify the responsible authority and revise the role table without inferring powers from titles. Organizers must verify the card before use.
  5. 08:40: the simulated receiver confirms receipt of only 20 kits, not distribution. A draft claims full distribution and requests affected persons’ names. Check claims, necessary data and simulated approval.
  6. 09:00: handover begins and the previous owner is unreachable. Confirm replacement ownership and read back open work/uncertainty. At 09:10 the controller provides feedback on an omitted task, followed by a 09:20 recheck window so C2 has a comparable opportunity in every round.

Real-incident transfer record

Use only after a real event with authorization. Repeat for relevant tasks or opportunities, including successful use, non-use or no opportunity. Keep this separate from CPX ratings.

Incident code / team code / form version
Enter _____ / _____ / _____. Use institution-authorized codes; omit names, personal IDs, phone numbers and person-identifying coordinates.
Incident date and interval
Start _____ end/ongoing _____ time zone _____ record date _____. Mark unknown times; label estimates explicitly.
Prior training and actual interval
Training code/version _____ completion date _____ trained behavior _____ incident start _____ interval _____ days; refresher/other activities and dates _____.
Permissions and custodian
Permission reference/scope _____ institutional custodian _____ required use basis/consent/review _____ access _____ review/deletion date _____. Do not attach sensitive records to a public copy.
Actual team and roles
Roles/member codes _____ continuing trained members _____ / whole team _____ role/personnel changes, dates and reasons _____. Distinguish organization from team continuity.
Linked criterion and opportunity
TC-_____ expected behavior _____ trigger/time offering opportunity _____ verified duty/authority _____ constraints _____. If no opportunity, enter NO and why.
What actually happened
Action/non-action _____ time _____ role _____ observed consequence _____ unknowns _____. Separate facts from causal explanations.
Contemporaneous records
Record code/version _____ creation time _____ page/item/timestamp locator _____ custodian _____ de-identified summary _____ missing items/reasons _____. Do not provide public links exposing incident records.
Later recollection
Informant code/role _____ collection date _____ days after event _____ method _____ recalled account _____ uncertainty _____. Keep separate from contemporaneous records even for firsthand respondents.
Corroborating and contradictory evidence
Supporting code/locator _____ contradicting code/locator _____ independent source or copied account _____ checks made _____ unresolved discrepancies _____. Do not select only successes.
Context and confounders
Incident scale/severity _____ workload _____ staffing/resources/communications _____ plan changes _____ other incidents/training _____ external support _____ differences from CPX _____.
Transfer interpretation and evidence confidence
Select: evidenced use / opportunity but non-use / unsuccessful adaptation / no opportunity / insufficient evidence. Reasons and evidence codes _____ plausible training contribution _____ alternative explanations _____. Do not automatically infer causality.
Harms, risks and safety follow-up
Record separately from learning scores: harm/near miss _____ evidence _____ urgency _____ institutional reporting route _____ coded owner _____. Do not delay urgent action for assessment.
Improvement, owner and due date
Evidence-supported problem _____ action _____ owner role/code _____ due date _____ closure evidence _____ constraints/escalation _____.
Recheck date and result
Review date _____ reviewer code _____ method/evidence _____ actual result _____ closed/open/reopened _____ reason _____ next review _____. Closure labels do not substitute for evidence of an effective correction.
Independent review and disagreement
Reviewer codes _____ each independent interpretation _____ evidence used _____ disagreement _____ consensus/unresolved _____ reasons _____. Retain originals separately from consensus.
Missing and inapplicable fields
Field ID _____ NO: unknown/unobserved/no opportunity because _____ or NA: outside scope because _____ reviewer _____ date _____. Explain blanks and do not replace them with zero.

Pilot and refine before making assessment decisions

  1. Before piloting, seek Thai disaster-management, assessment, community-access and data-stewardship expertise on content validity, wording and OBE alignment. Retain agreement and dissent; requesting review is not approval.
  2. Calibrate raters using examples at every level and NO/NA, with independent scoring before discussion. Use a fresh set to examine agreement before/after calibration. Prespecify analysis and revision rules; do not claim unmeasured reliability.
  3. Pilot time, evidence burden, NO/NA rates, accessibility, Thai/English comprehension and all eight opportunities. Try A–D with pilot teams and inspect order, difficulty and prompting effects before claiming comparability.
  4. Set team sample and precision needs from the question/resources with methodological expertise, rather than inventing sample sizes or convenient cutoffs. Plan for roster turnover, additional training and attrition with reasons and denominators.
  5. After piloting, review rater disagreement, floor/ceiling patterns and missing evidence. Revise anchors/scenarios with version and rationale. If score meaning changes, do not pool versions without a comparability study; repilot before expansion.

From evidence to design

These sources inform design decisions; they do not validate this instrument. The schedule, anchors and forms are project proposals.

Le Bloc’h et al. (2026). Tabletop Exercise for Training and Improving Business Continuity Plan Development in Hospital Pharmacies

swiss-pharmacy-ttx-followup-2026 · Methods: Hypothesis and Outcomes; Data Collection and Analysis; Results Table 3; Limitations.

An example of later organizational team observation: five hospital pharmacies underwent FSX 7.4–10.2 months after TTX.

No baseline FSX: not proof of retention or causality, and not Thai teams, real incidents or a 12-month measurement.

Open primary source ↗ · Read research brief

So et al. (2019). Extending the Reach of Pediatric Emergency Preparedness: A Virtual Tabletop Exercise Targeting Children’s Needs

pediatric-virtual-ttx-followup-2019 · Methods: Data Sources and Data Collection / Data Analysis; Results: Follow-up Actions; Table 3; Limitations and Future Directions.

Fourteen matched respondents reported state progress at months 1 and 6, distinguishing intentions from later reported action.

Participant reports, not observed six-month team behavior; no 12-month or real-incident outcome.

Open primary source ↗ · Read research brief

Skryabina et al. (2020). The role of emergency preparedness exercises in the response to a mass casualty terrorist incident: A mixed methods study

manchester-exercise-incident-transfer-2020 · §3.1.1–3.1.2; §4.1.2/Table 2; §4.2; §5.2 Limitations.

Accounts of using rehearsed plans, roles and coordination during a real incident within two months of exercises.

Retrospective self-report, not independent live-team scores or 6–12-month retention evidence.

Open primary source ↗ · Read research brief

Fowkes et al. (2010). Exercises in Emergency Preparedness for Health Professionals in Community Clinics

california-clinic-exercise-transfer-2010 · Methods: Evaluation; Table 2; Results: Effects on CHCs Emergency Plans / Post Disaster Interviews; Discussion.

Three-month plan follow-up and seven post-wildfire interviews motivate separating organizational improvement from incident-use evidence.

Exercise-to-wildfire interval unspecified, with attrition and concurrent assistance; not a 6/12-month outcome.

Open primary source ↗ · Read research brief

WHO (2017). WHO Simulation Exercise Manual, WHO/WHE/CPI/2017.10

who-simex-2017 · WHO publication landing page, Overview paragraphs 1–4 (the portion inspected in this pass).

Supports exercises as a way to practice roles and examine gaps in systems, procedures and mechanisms.

Does not endorse this KSEC rubric, follow-up schedule or cutoffs; PDF access failed in this pass.

Open primary source ↗

WHO (2019). Guidance for after action review (AAR), WHO/WHE/CPI/2019.4

who-aar-2019 · WHO publication landing page, Overview paragraphs 1–3 (the portion inspected in this pass).

Supports reviewing response for learning and improvement, with several review formats including interviews.

AAR alone is not causal evidence; this incident form is a project proposal. PDF access failed in this pass.

Open primary source ↗

กรมป้องกันและบรรเทาสาธารณภัย. แผนการป้องกันและบรรเทาสาธารณภัยแห่งชาติ พ.ศ. 2564–2570

ddpm-plan · Printed p.43, Figure 3–2 (PDF p.54); printed p.124, items 5.1–5.5 (PDF p.135).

Provides Thai mechanism context and information, option-development, coordination and operational-follow-up functions.

Inspected saved original-page images, not current local orders. Responsible officials must verify applicable plans and actual authority before exercise use.

Open primary source ↗