monitoring

UNCLASSIFIED
DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Blue‐colored nodes indicate “macro” nodes, or nodes that are easily decomposed into a
common set of sub‐nodes. The “movement sub‐space” is examined as an example. This subspace
corresponds to movement through the origin region, across international boundaries,
through global commons, and into the target region. The movement sub‐space is laid out in the
blue box on the right hand side of the framework diagram.
4.3.1. Analysis Within the Scenario Framework
The scenario framework serves several roles. Most importantly, it exists as a common frame of
reference for describing the M&V problem space. Narrower problem definitions, metrics, and
objectives can be derived where appropriate through decomposition (discussed in Section
4.4.1). Scenarios for analysis can be generated by stringing sequences of nodes together. Any
starting point and ending point can be selected, and a path through the network selected to
connect them. From that string of nodes, a more complete narrative can be constructed.
The scenario framework can also allow for greater and more complete coverage in the design
and analysis of solution architectures. A large family of scenarios can be analyzed by examining
all nodes systematically node‐by‐node independent of end‐to‐end scenarios. An analyst can
consider solution architectures that combat adversary success within a single node, and
consider the collective impact it has on the complete scenario space by examining both
upstream and downstream nodes. In addition, tradeoffs between architectures designed for
different nodes can be compared in an end‐to‐end system performance sense. This will aid the
assessment of the complete set of architecture components within a portfolio of defensive
measures and allow for complex trades to be made. The scenario framework should be
periodically reviewed and updated as appropriate based on real world experience and
additional analytical studies.
While the scenario framework provides the structure for this kind of analysis, there is still the
challenge of developing end‐to‐end metrics that are solution independent and common among
all nodes. Further consideration of this issue is given in Section 4.5.1.
4.4. Bridging Methodologies
The method used to connect the problem and solution spaces is called a bridging methodology.
It allows for a breakdown and prioritization of goals and objectives in the problem space into
requirements and metrics for potential solution architectures. It also allows for the systematic
aggregation of performance assessments and analyses into an overall picture of monitoring and
verification architecture performance.
4.4.1. Proposed Decomposition Map Approach
The bridging method proposed by the Task Force is a decomposition approach that
systematically maps problem space descriptions to prospective solution architect elements. The
approach begins with the selection of any node in the scenario framework discussed in Section
4.3. The selected node is decomposed into sub‐nodes required to add appropriate fidelity or
DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Chapter 4: Address the Problem | 43
Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies
UNCLASSIFIED