PARAIBELCOM reconstructs what is known about an adversary from the reports that actually arrived, says when a decision has to be taken and what single observation would change it, and plays every friendly plan against every adversary plan before it ranks anything. It runs on a laptop, and on a disconnected handset.
Every product is a view over the same reconstructed state. No stage is allowed to invent an input that the stage before it did not supply.
Each answers one question a staff officer actually asks — and each states what it will not claim.
“Why this plan, and not the other one?”
Friendly plans are generated, adversary plans are generated against them, and every friendly plan is played against every adversary plan — a million engagements, without sampling or pruning. What comes out is a portfolio with weights, not a single recommendation. Ranking uses a value function the operator sets and can read, over five measured features.
“Is this position even possible, given everything we have seen?”
The adversary formation state is reconstructed at any point in the reporting timeline. Observed, declared, assessed and unknown are separated. A stale position stays marked stale instead of being presented as current, and where a formation has not been seen recently the system shows where it could still be rather than inventing a position for it.
“What would make me change this plan, and how long do I have?”
Sorted by decision deadline, not by score — an event template is read to find out what has to be settled first. Each row gives the event, the time of contact, what the observation would be worth if it were made, and where the indicator stops discriminating between competing explanations.
“What do I still not know, who can look, and by when?”
The written intelligence requirements are held as written, and what the system’s own state says is unresolved is computed separately — then the divergence between the two lists is published. Where they agree, the plan is confirmed. Where they differ, the difference is the product.
Four commitments explain most of the design. Each one costs something, and the cost is stated — a principle whose price is not named is a slogan.
Every line is marked observed, declared, assessed or unknown, and the marking travels inside the data rather than living in the interface — so a change of screen cannot strip it.
Cost — products look emptier than a competitor’s. Fields that could be filled plausibly are left visibly empty.
A gap reads as a gap, and the missing input is identifiable by name. A measurement that arrives blank is refused rather than coerced to zero.
Cost — the system regularly declines to answer questions it is asked, including during demonstrations.
Write “62 %” in a doctrinal product and it will be read as a frequency — and nobody downstream will ask again. The system prints an assessment score with its nature attached and takes the explanatory burden instead.
Cost — scores are harder to explain than percentages, and the explanation has to be repeated.
Predicting what an adversary commander will do is not a solved problem and we do not claim it. Identifying the place and the time at which one observation would separate two hypotheses is computable — and it is what a collection manager can act on this afternoon.
Cost — it never produces the confident single forecast that briefs well.
Twenty modules on a consumer phone. Every one works with no network, no account and no cloud. None of them transmits.
None of this is a claim about military effectiveness. They are claims about the engineering — the kind that can be checked by somebody who does not trust us.