# Thai team CPX assessment pilot plan

Pilot 0.1.0 · Framework 0.1.0 · 2026-10-16

This project proposal has no pilot results, endorsement or validity/reliability evidence. Its primary purpose is feasibility, not proving training efficacy, certifying readiness or ranking teams. The 6/12-month schedule and 0–3 rubric are proposals, not research-validated standards. The website provides blank forms and collects no team, personal or incident data.

A feasibility pilot of baseline, post-training, month 6 and month 12 forms, linking criterion-level KSEC evidence to OBE outcomes to review wording, observation opportunities, burden and scoring before deciding whether to adapt or expand use.

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-pilot/

## Scope and team unit

Purposefully include Thai teams with contexts relevant to the question, such as agency, locality, remit, experience and resources. Record invitation, participation and non-participation reasons; do not assume national representativeness. A methodologist should help determine team sample size, desired precision and resource limits before collection; this plan supplies no fixed sample size.

The team is the follow-up unit. Use coded team and member/role records, tracking members continuing from T0/current roster size and role changes at each wave. Prespecify how changed team composition will be handled. The same organization name does not establish the same team, and eight criteria are not eight independent team observations.


## Roles, authority and permissions

Name a coordinator for scheduling/document versions, controllers for injects and prompting logs, independent raters A/B, a disagreement reviewer, a data steward and a methodologist. The responsible local official checks applicable plans/orders with edition, date, clause and proposal, coordination, approval and publication roles. Record overlapping roles and conflicts of interest.

Before starting, have the responsible institution determine whether the activity is service improvement or research and what ethics review, consent and data permissions apply. This plan neither grants permission nor establishes legal compliance. Specify access, retention/deletion, reuse and reporting in authorized institutional systems. Use codes and minimum necessary data, separating learning from individual punishment.

Specify stop authority, concern-reporting channels and the process for handling concerns and authorizing restart. Mark materials exercise only and do not task real agencies. Stop for safety or data concerns or a real emergency; report to the responsible official without allowing assessment to disrupt response.


## Approve the protocol before T0

Obtain responsible-owner approval of the protocol, forms, framework version, review criteria and analysis plan before T0. Specify the follow-up reference date, day-counting rule, acceptable M6/M12 windows, out-of-window reporting, wave comparisons, denominators, exclusion reasons and missing-data handling. Log later amendments with reasons rather than silently changing rules after seeing results.

Check all eight criterion–KSEC–OBE–inject–artifact–observation-window links against the canonical framework and curriculum, including Thai/English comprehension and accessibility. C concerns observed contextual conduct, not personality. Prepare fresh A–D scenarios from one blueprint and record opportunity, difficulty, time, resources and prompting. A shared blueprint does not establish scenario equivalence.

Raters use the calibration kit and recheck with new unseen cases, recording prior key exposure. Before data exist, a methodologist specifies ordinal agreement analysis, uncertainty estimates and required team numbers. Do not invent reliability values or unsupported passing thresholds.


## Record, lock and reconcile

Use separate A/B forms at every wave. Record evidence IDs, time, behavior, opportunities, prompting, rating and rationale without seeing the other rater's score. Mask prior scores/phase where feasible and disclose limits. Timestamp and lock originals before discussion. The reviewer adds resolution, reasons and remaining dissent without overwriting original ratings; rank or averaging does not resolve differences.

Use 0 when an observable opportunity existed but the behavior was not demonstrated; reasoned NO for unobserved behavior, insufficient evidence or no opportunity; and justified NA only for role/scope inapplicability declared before the wave. Blank means unentered. Keep all three separate from zero and distinguish a wholly missed wave; never carry an earlier score forward into a missed wave.


## Criterion analysis and separate incident evidence

Report paired 0–3 level transitions by criterion for prespecified wave comparisons, restricted to sufficiently comparable teams, opportunities and scenarios, with available/expected pairs and ineligibility reasons. Show independent scores and pre-consensus differences, separating NO/NA/blanks. Do not total scores, average ordinal levels, calculate percentage retention or infer causality. At every wave show invited, enrolled, scheduled, observed and missing teams with reasons.

Keep repeat CPX ratings, between-wave corrective actions, participant reports and incident forms in separate streams. Record only naturally occurring, authorized incidents with training-to-incident interval, continuing members, use opportunities and context. Separate self-report from contemporaneous documents a reviewer can verify; record use, non-use, failure, contradictory evidence and unverifiable claims. No incident is not zero, and incident forms do not replace M6/M12.


## Make a feasibility decision

Review after each wave and synthesize after M12. Use the qualitative signals below with evidence and limitations, not invented readiness cutoffs. Record the rationale for holding, adapting, repiloting or expanding, including dissent, owner, conditions and review date. Expansion requires a documented rationale and authorization; improved ratings do not trigger it automatically.


## T0 · Before training

Before the teaching, training or improvement intervention being evaluated; record date, time and time zone.
- Confirm the approved protocol, rubric version, data permissions, KSEC/OBE blueprint, roles and team register. Collect T0 before teaching or the evaluated training intervention, using unseen scenario A and a standard briefing.
- Record date/time/zone, roster and roles, prior experience, opportunities and prompting. A/B lock ratings/evidence before review. Log deviations; if a true T0 is absent, do not reconstruct it retrospectively.

- Deliver: Locked T0 A/B forms, artifact/opportunity set, eight-criterion profile, baseline team register and deviation log.

## T1 · Immediately after training

Begin immediately after the specified training ends. Record training end, assessment start/end and actual elapsed interval; disclose any delay.
- Assess after the specified training and before assessment feedback/AAR, using fresh scenario B. Record training end, assessment start/end, actual interval, training content, fatigue and deviations. Simulated feedback required for TC-C2 is a standard task inject, not disclosure of assessment results.
- Lock A/B and evidence before feedback, review A/B scenario comparability and roster changes, then conduct the AAR and maintain corrective actions separately from ratings.

- Deliver: T1 A/B forms and review trail, criterion-level T0–T1 paired table with denominators, actual timing/deviation log and separate AAR register.

## M6 · Month 6 follow-up

Target six months after training completion: a project proposal. Prespecify a scheduling window and report actual elapsed days.
- Schedule within the month 6 window declared before T0. Record the assessment date and actual days from the reference date with in/out-of-window status. Use fresh scenario C and review opportunities and difficulty without assuming equivalence to A/B.
- Record continuing/current members, new roles, refreshers, other training, task exposure, incidents and plan/resource changes. Lock A/B before discussion. For a missed wave record reason and follow-up status, without reusing an earlier score.

- Deliver: M6 A/B forms, artifacts, prespecified paired-wave tables with denominators/limits, context-change register and observed/missing team register.

## 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.
- Use the prespecified month 12 window and record actual days as at M6. Use fresh scenario D and recheck opportunities, difficulty, time, prompting and team context. Do not attribute performance solely to initial-training retention when intervening training or other factors occurred.
- Collect and lock A/B, review prespecified wave pairs, attrition and dissent, and synthesize feasibility with raters, teams, the data steward and methodologist. Keep incident and corrective-action evidence separate from ratings.

- Deliver: M12 A/B forms and evidence, across-wave criterion report with missingness/denominators/uncertainty, decision record and version-revision or repilot plan.

## Review criteria

### missingness · Missing evidence and follow-up

Repeated NO, blanks, absent artifacts or missed waves, especially when concentrated in a criterion/context.

Separate reasons and denominators, review collection/opportunities/burden, adapt and repilot; hold comparisons when evidence is insufficient rather than filling with zero.

### comprehension · Wording and criterion comprehension

Teams/raters interpret Thai–English wording, roles or 0/NO/NA differently, or cannot access forms.

Use cognitive interviews to elicit users' understanding, revise wording/format with a trail, check both languages and repilot before expansion.

### burden · Time and burden

Collection delays or disrupts training, raters cannot keep up, or teams report burden that prevents follow-up.

Review actual time and duplicate work, adapt procedures/resources while retaining necessary evidence, repilot and document whether burden improved.

### anchor-range · Floor/ceiling patterns and opportunities

Ratings cluster at the lowest/highest levels or some levels rarely have evidence, potentially reflecting teams, tasks or anchors.

Review evidence and opportunity with experts; do not automatically widen the scale. Version and repilot changes to score meaning.

### disagreement · Rater disagreement

Repeated A/B differences on the same criterion, reasoning inconsistent with anchors, or agreement based on a shared evidence error.

Separate evidence-access, interpretation and transcription issues, preserve dissent, recalibrate and recheck with new cases before further use.

### comparability · Team and scenario comparability

Opportunity, difficulty, prompting, actual timing, membership or additional training differ enough to undermine paired interpretation.

Limit or hold affected comparisons, disclose context, adapt the blueprint/procedure and repilot; do not call A–D equivalent without evidence.

### safety · Safety, authority and data

Risk to people, unauthorized disclosure, exercise communication mistaken for a real order, or unclear authority/permission.

Stop and report under the protocol, address the concern, review permissions and safeguards, and obtain responsible authorization before restart, documenting whether to hold, adapt or repilot.

## Traceable rubric revision

### 1. Assemble evidence and the problem

Use independent ratings, evidence, opportunities, disagreement, missingness, burden and user feedback. Identify affected criteria/scenarios/forms, limits and owner, separating procedure problems from rubric meaning.

### 2. Propose a versioned change

Record rationale, old/new wording and anchors, required evidence and KSEC/OBE effects with date/proposer. Preserve the old framework and trace effects on the guide, practice kit, scenarios, forms and exports. Do not alter the canonical criteria without review.

### 3. Conduct expert and cognitive review

Have Thai operational, assessment, accessibility and data experts review coverage/OBE, and ask teams/raters to explain Thai–English wording. Retain dissent and responses. Requesting review is neither approval nor completed validation.

### 4. Recheck raters with unseen cases

Prepare unseen cases covering levels and NO/NA for revised criteria. A/B rate independently and lock before discussion. Review reasoning and planned uncertainty; previously seen public keys do not constitute an unseen recheck.

### 5. Repilot before expansion

Repilot revised wording, opportunities, burden and scenarios with suitable teams under a methodologist-informed plan. Review original signals and new effects, documenting whether to hold, adapt again, repilot or propose expansion without inventing readiness cutoffs.

### 6. Preserve history and limit cross-version pooling

Record review results, actual authorizer, authorized scope, effective date and version on every form. Preserve original versioned data. If score meaning changes, do not pool versions without comparability evidence and a supporting analysis plan. Report versions separately and state what remains untested.

## Forms and data dictionary

Complete copies in authorized storage; this site receives no data. Lock A/B separately before discussion. One set per team; copy transfer per incident/task and decisions per reviewed wave/criterion. Rater practice P/R scores are not team outcomes. Blank is unentered, never zero.

### 1. Lock protocol and responsibilities
https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/pilot-setup.csv

1 prepared rows; actual data fields are blank
- `pilot_version`: Pilot protocol version
- `framework_version`: Actual rubric version; never overwrite the original version
- `protocol_id`: Protocol ID locked before T0
- `team_code`: Team code, no member names
- `site_context`: Area and agency context using authorized codes
- `sampling_rationale`: Team selection, sample/precision rationale and representativeness limits
- `eligibility`: Team inclusion/withdrawal criteria set before recruitment
- `roles_ref`: Reference for coordinator, controller, A/B, reviewer, data steward and analyst roles
- `authority_ref`: Checked local plan/authority reference and verification date
- `permissions_ref`: Status and evidence of permissions, ethics determination and participant information required by the institution
- `storage_plan_ref`: Access, storage, retention, deletion and separated identity-register plan
- `analysis_plan_ref`: Prespecified analysis: team unit, denominators, missingness, ordinal methods/uncertainty and comparability
- `review_rules_ref`: Review/hold/adapt/repilot rules agreed before T0 with rationale
- `scenario_plan_ref`: Scenario versions, inject order, opportunities, target times and comparability plan
- `calibration_ref`: Independent rater calibration and unseen recheck evidence
- `approved_by_role`: Responsible approving role; leave blank until evidenced
- `approved_at`: Actual approval timestamp with timezone

### 2. Four-wave context and follow-up
https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/pilot-waves.csv

4 prepared rows; actual data fields are blank
- `pilot_version`: Pilot protocol version
- `framework_version`: Actual rubric version; never overwrite the original version
- `protocol_id`: Protocol ID locked before T0
- `team_code`: Team code, no member names
- `phase`: Wave T0 / T1 / M6 / M12
- `training_end`: Reference training-completion timestamp with timezone
- `planned_start`: Prespecified scheduling-window start
- `planned_end`: Prespecified scheduling-window end
- `observed_start`: Actual assessment start with timezone
- `observed_end`: Actual assessment end with timezone
- `elapsed_days`: Actual days from training completion to assessment start; T0 may be negative
- `wave_status`: completed / partial / missed / withdrawn; not a score
- `deviation_reason`: Timing, feedback exposure or protocol deviations; record none if absent
- `missing_reason`: Reason for missing wave/evidence/rating; blank is not zero
- `baseline_members`: T0 member count from separated roster
- `current_members`: Current wave member count
- `retained_members`: T0 members present this wave, bounded by baseline/current counts
- `role_changes`: Changed roles and reasons using codes
- `intervening_events`: Refreshers, incidents, plan/resource changes between waves with dates
- `scenario_version`: Actual scenario version
- `comparability`: Comparable/not comparable/unknown with team, opportunity, difficulty, prompting and version reasons
- `burden_minutes`: Actual data-collection minutes, specifying included tasks
- `accessibility_notes`: Language, format or access barriers and accommodations
- `safety_ref`: Authorized safety/data-report reference, separate from ratings

### 3A. Independent rater A
https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/pilot-a.csv

32 prepared rows; actual data fields are blank
- `pilot_version`: Pilot protocol version
- `framework_version`: Actual rubric version; never overwrite the original version
- `protocol_id`: Protocol ID locked before T0
- `team_code`: Team code, no member names
- `phase`: Wave T0 / T1 / M6 / M12
- `criterion_id`: Canonical criterion ID
- `ksec`: KSEC domain
- `outcome_id`: OBE outcome ID
- `rater_slot`: A or B form, collected separately
- `rater_code`: Rater code and conflict-of-interest register reference
- `scenario_version`: Actual scenario version
- `opportunity`: Inject/task opportunities required by criterion; identify missing opportunities
- `scope_ref`: Pre-exercise scope reference, especially for NA
- `prompting`: Actual prompting/coaching and timestamp
- `score`: Only 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / NO / NA; blank = unentered
- `evidence_refs`: Traceable evidence codes with timestamps/document locators
- `reason`: Anchor/evidence rationale, including reasons for NO/NA
- `locked_at`: Original lock timestamp before seeing the other rater/discussion

### 3B. Independent rater B
https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/pilot-b.csv

32 prepared rows; actual data fields are blank
- `pilot_version`: Pilot protocol version
- `framework_version`: Actual rubric version; never overwrite the original version
- `protocol_id`: Protocol ID locked before T0
- `team_code`: Team code, no member names
- `phase`: Wave T0 / T1 / M6 / M12
- `criterion_id`: Canonical criterion ID
- `ksec`: KSEC domain
- `outcome_id`: OBE outcome ID
- `rater_slot`: A or B form, collected separately
- `rater_code`: Rater code and conflict-of-interest register reference
- `scenario_version`: Actual scenario version
- `opportunity`: Inject/task opportunities required by criterion; identify missing opportunities
- `scope_ref`: Pre-exercise scope reference, especially for NA
- `prompting`: Actual prompting/coaching and timestamp
- `score`: Only 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / NO / NA; blank = unentered
- `evidence_refs`: Traceable evidence codes with timestamps/document locators
- `reason`: Anchor/evidence rationale, including reasons for NO/NA
- `locked_at`: Original lock timestamp before seeing the other rater/discussion

### 4. Review while preserving originals
https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/pilot-review.csv

32 prepared rows; actual data fields are blank
- `pilot_version`: Pilot protocol version
- `framework_version`: Actual rubric version; never overwrite the original version
- `protocol_id`: Protocol ID locked before T0
- `team_code`: Team code, no member names
- `phase`: Wave T0 / T1 / M6 / M12
- `criterion_id`: Canonical criterion ID
- `ksec`: KSEC domain
- `outcome_id`: OBE outcome ID
- `a_original_ref`: Immutable original A record reference
- `a_score`: Original A rating, not reconciled score
- `a_locked_at`: Original A lock timestamp
- `b_original_ref`: Immutable original B record reference
- `b_score`: Original B rating, not reconciled score
- `b_locked_at`: Original B lock timestamp
- `difference_type`: Evidence/anchor/opportunity/transcription difference; separate NO/NA and incomplete pairs
- `resolution`: Resolution/agreed rating or unresolved; never resolve by averaging
- `resolution_reason`: Evidence and rationale while retaining original ratings
- `dissent`: Unresolved dissent
- `reviewer_code`: Reviewer code with conflicts recorded
- `reviewed_at`: Review timestamp with timezone

### 5. Incident transfer, separate from exercises
https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/pilot-transfer.csv

8 prepared rows; actual data fields are blank
- `pilot_version`: Pilot protocol version
- `framework_version`: Actual rubric version; never overwrite the original version
- `protocol_id`: Protocol ID locked before T0
- `team_code`: Team code, no member names
- `criterion_id`: Canonical criterion ID
- `ksec`: KSEC domain
- `outcome_id`: OBE outcome ID
- `incident_code`: Authorized incident/task code; no personal or sensitive operational data
- `incident_date`: Actual incident/task date and time
- `training_end`: Reference training-completion timestamp with timezone
- `incident_elapsed_days`: Actual days from training_end to incident_date using the protocol timezone/day-counting rule; not assessment elapsed time
- `baseline_members`: T0 member count from separated roster
- `incident_roster_ref`: Authorized separate roster/role reference for the actual incident task
- `incident_members`: Number of team members on the actual incident task
- `incident_retained_members`: T0 members on the actual incident task, bounded by baseline_members and incident_members
- `transfer_opportunity`: yes / no / unknown with reason; no opportunity is not failure
- `actual_action`: Actual criterion-level action, separate from intention
- `contemporaneous_refs`: Contemporaneous record references, not sensitive contents
- `recollection`: Retrospective account with reporting date, separate from documents
- `corroboration`: Corroborating/contradictory/unverifiable evidence and verifier
- `confounders`: Other experience, resources, refreshers or turnover that may explain results
- `transfer_interpretation`: Reported use/document-supported/contradicted/insufficient; no causal inference
- `permissions_ref`: Status and evidence of permissions, ethics determination and participant information required by the institution
- `role_changes`: Changed roles and reasons using codes
- `safety_ref`: Authorized safety/data-report reference, separate from ratings
- `reviewer_code`: Reviewer code with conflicts recorded
- `reviewed_at`: Review timestamp with timezone
- `action_owner`: Responsible action-owner role
- `due_date`: Action due date
- `closure_evidence`: Recheck/closure evidence; blank while unfinished

### 6. Pilot findings and review decisions
https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/pilot-decisions.csv

7 prepared rows; actual data fields are blank
- `pilot_version`: Pilot protocol version
- `framework_version`: Actual rubric version; never overwrite the original version
- `protocol_id`: Protocol ID locked before T0
- `team_code`: Team code, no member names
- `phase`: Wave T0 / T1 / M6 / M12
- `review_id`: Pilot review-criterion ID
- `criterion_id`: Canonical criterion ID
- `denominator`: Eligible team/pair denominator per criterion/wave with exclusion reasons
- `findings`: Findings with denominators, evidence and limitations
- `evidence_refs`: Traceable evidence codes with timestamps/document locators
- `decision`: hold / adapt / repilot / expand-proposal with rationale, not certification
- `reason`: Anchor/evidence rationale, including reasons for NO/NA
- `dissent`: Unresolved dissent
- `reviewer_code`: Reviewer code with conflicts recorded
- `reviewed_at`: Review timestamp with timezone
- `action_owner`: Responsible action-owner role
- `due_date`: Action due date
- `closure_evidence`: Recheck/closure evidence; blank while unfinished

### 7. Rubric change and version record
https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/pilot-revision.csv

8 prepared rows; actual data fields are blank
- `pilot_version`: Pilot protocol version
- `framework_version`: Actual rubric version; never overwrite the original version
- `protocol_id`: Protocol ID locked before T0
- `team_code`: Team code, no member names
- `criterion_id`: Canonical criterion ID
- `ksec`: KSEC domain
- `outcome_id`: OBE outcome ID
- `change_id`: Change-request ID
- `old_anchor`: Original anchor wording and version
- `proposed_anchor`: Proposed wording, not yet replacing original version
- `change_rationale`: Evidence/problem/dissent and change rationale
- `meaning_changed`: yes / no / uncertain with score-meaning rationale
- `obe_impact`: Impact on KSEC/OBE, opportunities and artifacts
- `review_evidence`: Expert and user wording/anchor interpretation review evidence
- `retest_evidence`: Fresh-case rater and repilot evidence before expansion
- `new_version`: Approved new version, blank until approval
- `effective_date`: Agreed and recorded new-version effective date
- `pooling_rule`: Separate versions absent comparability evidence; cite any supporting study
- `decision`: hold / adapt / repilot / expand-proposal with rationale, not certification
- `approved_by_role`: Responsible approving role; leave blank until evidenced
- `approved_at`: Actual approval timestamp with timezone

## KSEC / OBE

- 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.

### TC-K1 · Explain roles and authority boundaries
K / EOC-K

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

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

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-assessment/#TC-K1

### TC-K2 · Explain what an evidence item establishes
K / CPX-K

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

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

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-assessment/#TC-K2

### TC-S1 · Update the situation picture with a verification trail
S / EOC-S

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

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

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-assessment/#TC-S1

### TC-S2 · Close the loop on task coordination
S / EOC-S

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

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

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-assessment/#TC-S2

### TC-E1 · Justify allocation with attention to those still waiting
E / EOC-E

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

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

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-assessment/#TC-E1

### TC-E2 · Communicate within evidence and data limits
E / EOC-E

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

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

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-assessment/#TC-E2

### TC-C1 · Hear challenges and explain revisions
C / EOC-C

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

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

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-assessment/#TC-C1

### TC-C2 · Own improvements through recheck
C / CPX-C

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

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

https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/team-assessment/#TC-C2

## Evidence and limits

Uses the same seven design-rationale sources as the team framework and assessor guide, retaining editions, locators and access limits. This plan, procedures, follow-up schedule and review criteria are project-proposed syntheses, not a protocol endorsed by WHO or the original researchers. KSEC/OBE links show curriculum alignment, not validity evidence. This page adds no pilot findings or new validation claim.

### swiss-pharmacy-ttx-followup-2026 · Le Bloc’h et al. (2026). Tabletop Exercise for Training and Improving Business Continuity Plan Development in Hospital Pharmacies
https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2026.10424

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.

### pediatric-virtual-ttx-followup-2019 · So et al. (2019). Extending the Reach of Pediatric Emergency Preparedness: A Virtual Tabletop Exercise Targeting Children’s Needs
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0033354919849880

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.

### manchester-exercise-incident-transfer-2020 · Skryabina et al. (2020). The role of emergency preparedness exercises in the response to a mass casualty terrorist incident: A mixed methods study
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7709486/

§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.

### california-clinic-exercise-transfer-2010 · Fowkes et al. (2010). Exercises in Emergency Preparedness for Health Professionals in Community Clinics
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2952103/

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.

### who-simex-2017 · WHO (2017). WHO Simulation Exercise Manual, WHO/WHE/CPI/2017.10
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-WHE-CPI-2017.10

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.

### who-aar-2019 · WHO (2019). Guidance for after action review (AAR), WHO/WHE/CPI/2019.4
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-WHE-CPI-2019.4

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.

### ddpm-plan · กรมป้องกันและบรรเทาสาธารณภัย. แผนการป้องกันและบรรเทาสาธารณภัยแห่งชาติ พ.ศ. 2564–2570
https://www.disaster.go.th/upload/download/file_attach/3753867497001f8e1303362092706df1.pdf

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.

Copyright 2026 PK-Research. https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/licenses/