Team Capstone Project
Table of contents
Overview
Your team will select a recent or ongoing real-world security issue and build an original simulation around it. You will trace the issue back to its relevant origins, identifying the chain of decisions and events that shaped its trajectory. Then construct a decision tree that maps the key branching points, where different choices led, or could have led, to different outcomes. Finally, you will translate your research and analysis into a playable simulation design, a structured scenario with roles, phases, and decision mechanics that another group could run. The goal is to produce a rigorous, integrative analysis that demonstrates your ability to think across security domains and apply what you have learned from this semester’s in-class simulation.
Requirements
Topic
Choose a bounded case, episode, or decision sequence within a security issue from the last 10 years. The focal case or decision sequence should fall within this window, though your origin analysis may trace earlier background as needed. Do not choose an entire long-running global issue. For example, “Western decisions around long-range strike authorization in Ukraine, 2022–2024” is better scoped than “the Russia-Ukraine War.” Topics may include but are not limited to:
- Geopolitical/military: conflicts, territorial disputes, arms races, alliances, sanctions
- Cyber: state-sponsored attacks, critical infrastructure breaches, information warfare
- Climate/disaster: natural hazards, resource scarcity, climate-driven migration
- Infrastructure: supply chain disruptions, energy security, critical systems
- Emerging technology: AI governance, biotech, space security
Regardless of your topic’s primary domain, your analysis must examine the issue through at least 4 different security lenses (e.g., military, cyber, economic, diplomatic, environmental). Each lens must appear at multiple decision nodes in your tree, and at least some major branches must analyze how 2 or more lenses interact — not just one lens at a time. Do not treat any case as confined to a single domain. Trace the supply chains, sanctions, information operations, energy dependencies, and alliances that shape it.
Your proposal must explain why the issue is narrow enough to analyze rigorously within the project timeline.
Situation Analysis
Your first major deliverable. This lays the foundation for the decision tree and must include:
- Origin analysis — trace the issue back to its relevant origins
- Key stakeholders — identify the actors and decision-makers, their roles, interests, and relationships
- Event timeline — a chronological map of what actually happened
- Security dimensions mapping — an initial sketch of how your 4 chosen lenses connect to the issue and its stakeholders
Decision Tree
Your decision tree must include:
- A minimum of 8 to 10 key branching points that drove the issue’s development
- At least 4 counterfactual branches — plausible alternatives that did not occur
- Each node must identify the stakeholder(s) responsible for the decision and include a brief justification: why this was a decision point, and what evidence supports the path taken (or the alternative)
- The visual diagram can take any format (flowchart, structured diagram, etc.) as long as it is clear and readable
A valid branching point is a decision, omission, or commitment by a specific actor that materially changed the trajectory of the issue. Background events or general trends are not branching points. Each counterfactual must be justified with evidence for its plausibility — no purely speculative alternatives.
Simulation Design
Your decision tree and situation analysis form the backbone of a playable simulation. You must translate your research into a simulation design that includes:
- Player roles — mapped to key stakeholders from your situation analysis, with defined objectives, constraints, and available resources
- Starting scenario — the initial conditions and trigger event that begins the simulation
- Phases or turns — how the simulation progresses (e.g., 3 to 5 rounds representing key periods)
- Decision mechanics — what choices players face at each phase, linked to your decision tree’s branching points
- Injects — escalation events or new information introduced between phases to force adaptation
- Counterfactual pathways — how the simulation branches based on player decisions, drawing from your counterfactual analysis
- Resolution criteria — how outcomes are evaluated (not “win/lose” but criteria for assessing the quality of decisions made)
You do not need to run the simulation. The design should be detailed enough that another team could facilitate it within a normal class session. Include a short facilitator guide with:
- Expected run time
- Number of players needed
- Materials or preparation required
- What the facilitator does between phases
Integrative Analysis
Your final document must demonstrate integrative thinking. Include a dedicated subsection for each of your 4 chosen security lenses, showing how that dimension influenced the trajectory at multiple branching points. For each major branch in your tree, analyze how decisions in one domain (e.g., diplomatic) created cascading effects in others (e.g., economic, cyber, military). Additionally, include a cross-lens synthesis that compares how security dimensions interacted across your most important branches. This synthesis should demonstrate integration across lenses, rather than treating each lens subsection as a standalone analysis.
Each analytical section in the final document serves a distinct function:
- Counterfactual analysis = plausible alternatives and branching logic
- Integrative analysis = how multiple security dimensions interact across actual and alternative paths
- Implications = forward-looking lessons for policy, preparedness, or institutional design
Timeline
| Date | Milestone |
|---|---|
| Apr 2 | Proposal due + flash presentation (3 min per team) |
| Apr 7 | Red team: proposals |
| Apr 9 | Guest lecture |
| Apr 14 | Draft: situation analysis |
| Apr 16 | Red team: situation analysis |
| Apr 21 | Draft: decision tree + counterfactual branches |
| Apr 23 | Red team: decision tree + counterfactuals |
| Apr 28 | Draft: integrative analysis + simulation design |
| Apr 30 | Red team: integrative analysis + simulation design |
| May 5 | Showcase: poster + lightning presentation + voting |
| May 8 | Final document due |
Drafts (Apr 14, 21, 28): Submit the current version of that section on Canvas. Drafts do not need polished prose, but must include the core structure and analytical logic for that section. Each stage should build directly on the previous one rather than being treated as a separate assignment.
Red team sessions (Apr 7, 16, 23, 30): Critiques and responses are conducted on the Canvas discussion board and will be graded. Each team red teams 2 other teams per session and receives critiques from 2 teams in return. Provide at least 3 substantive critiques per team you review. A substantive critique must (1) identify a specific weakness or omission, (2) explain why it matters, and (3) propose a concrete improvement or question.
Proposal (Apr 2)
Submit a written proposal that includes:
- A 1-paragraph summary of your chosen issue and its relevance
- A scope justification — why this issue is narrow enough to analyze rigorously within the project timeline
- The starting point or earliest relevant stage you plan to analyze
- The key stakeholders you have identified so far
- The 4 security lenses you will analyze
- A preliminary source list with at least 5 credible sources. See the source guidelines below
Presentation format: Slides are not required and should not be submitted. For the 3-minute flash presentation, teams may either (a) present directly from their written proposal or (b) deliver the pitch without visual aids.
Red Team Sessions (Apr 7, 16, 23, 30)
Each draft and proposal is followed by a red team session. Each team will be assigned to red team 2 other teams per session (and will receive critiques from 2 teams in return). Your job as a red team is to:
- Proposals (Apr 7): Challenge topic scope, question the origin point, check if security lenses are well-chosen
- Situation analysis (Apr 16): Probe for missing stakeholders, gaps in the timeline, weak sourcing
- Decision tree + counterfactuals (Apr 23): Question branching logic, stress-test counterfactuals for plausibility
- Integrative analysis + simulation design (Apr 30): Identify missing cross-domain connections, challenge implications, test whether the simulation design is playable
Each team should prepare to both defend their own analysis and critique another team’s work. The receiving team must respond to major critiques in their final document, either by revising the project accordingly or by explaining, with justification, why they chose a different path.
Showcase (May 5)
On the last day of class, each team will present their simulation design in a showcase format:
- Single-panel digital poster — a visual summary of your issue, decision tree, simulation design, and key findings
- Lightning presentation — 3 minutes to walk the class through your analysis and simulation
- Gallery walk + discussion — open time to explore other teams’ posters and ask questions
- Class vote — everyone votes for the top 3 simulations (does not affect grades)
Deliverables
| Deliverable | Weight |
|---|---|
| Proposal + flash presentation | 5% |
| Drafts (3 × 5%) | 15% |
| Red team discussions (4 × 5%) | 20% |
| Poster + lightning presentation | 5% |
| Final document | 55% |
1. Proposal + Flash Presentation — 5% (Apr 2)
Written proposal (summary, scope justification, starting point, key stakeholders, security lenses, preliminary sources) + flash presentation.
2. Drafts — 15% (Apr 14, 21, 28)
Submit the current version of the assigned section on Canvas. Graded on completeness, analytical depth, and progress since the prior stage. 5% each.
- Apr 14 — Situation analysis
- Apr 21 — Decision tree + counterfactual branches
- Apr 28 — Integrative analysis + simulation design
3. Red Team Discussions — 20% (Apr 7, 16, 23, 30)
Graded critiques and defense on the Canvas discussion board, one per red team session. 5% each. Graded on specificity, constructiveness, and use of evidence.
4. Poster + Lightning Presentation — 5% (May 5)
Single-panel digital poster for the showcase, submitted on Canvas by May 5, plus a 3-minute lightning presentation. Should include your decision tree, simulation design overview, key findings, and integrative analysis at a glance. Format: digital PDF in either 2:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio.
5. Final Document — 55% (May 8)
A comprehensive written report that builds on your three drafts, revised and polished based on red team feedback, plus additional sections. There is no strict page requirement, but most strong reports will be in the range of 15 to 25 pages (excluding bibliography and appendices). The report must include:
- Executive summary — a brief overview of your issue, key findings, and implications
- Situation analysis — relevant origins of the issue, key stakeholders and their roles and interests, event timeline, and initial mapping of security dimensions
- Decision tree — visual diagram with written explanations for each node
- Counterfactual analysis — alternative branches with supporting evidence
- Simulation design — roles, starting scenario, phases, decision mechanics, injects, counterfactual pathways, and resolution criteria (see Simulation Design requirements)
- Integrative security analysis — a dedicated subsection for each of your 4 security lenses, plus a cross-lens synthesis showing how dimensions interacted across your most important branches
- Response to red team feedback — a concise account of how you addressed major critiques from all four red team sessions, or why you chose not to adopt specific suggestions
- Implications — what your analysis reveals about future security policy or preparedness
- Bibliography — minimum 15 credible sources (see source guidelines below)
Appendix: Include a brief team contributions statement describing each member’s contributions to the project.
The final document will be evaluated on:
- Analytical rigor and evidence — are claims well-sourced and logically supported?
- Quality of branching logic and counterfactuals — are branching points genuine decision points with plausible alternatives?
- Strength and playability of simulation design — could another team actually run this simulation?
- Integrative use of security lenses — do the lenses interact meaningfully, or are they treated in isolation?
- Responsiveness to feedback — does the document show genuine engagement with red team critiques?
- Clarity and organization — is the report well-structured and clearly written?
Source Guidelines
Use a mix of primary and secondary sources. Your bibliography must include:
- At least 5 primary or official sources where available (e.g., government reports, official statements, legal documents, original datasets). For topics where official documentation is limited (e.g., cyber incidents, covert operations), explain the evidence constraints in your writing
- Use peer-reviewed sources and reputable institutional sources where available (e.g., academic journals, RAND, CSIS, UN reports, World Bank, IEA)
Avoid relying heavily on AI-generated summaries, Wikipedia, or uncited commentary. Clearly distinguish between reporting, analysis, and evidence in your writing.