monitoring

UNCLASSIFIED
DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
decomposition map, and then captured as part of the overall solution architecture assessment.
Areas of disagreement in assessments, or those areas that are not well covered (or overcovered)
by current analytical results can be readily identified. In this way, a decomposition
map can also serve to guide the overall effort of an M&V analytical capability, such as that
described in Section A.6.
Each node in the scenario framework proposed in Section A.2 will have at least one unique
decomposition map associated with it in a fully formed analytical effort. There are only a
limited number of unique investible assets that may be incorporated in prospective solution
architectures, and many assets are likely applicable to several different functional objectives
and tasks. These observations imply that most assets will aggregate requirements from multiple
scenario nodes, strategic capability areas, functional objectives, and tasks. Assets must be
assessed against each set, and synergies may be identified and leveraged when designing
solution architectures.
Optimistically, the same asset may have sufficient performance and applicability across multiple
tasks, functional objectives, strategic capability areas, and scenario nodes. This implies that if a
consistent accounting of performance and benefits is made, through a systematic methodology
as proposed here, then benefits across the problem space can be better understood, and
investments in one area may have the effect of reducing risk in areas outside the scenario node
currently being investigated. In this way, one might imagine a fully executed analytical model of
the M&V mission areas as a large multi‐layered network – on one face exists the problem
description (i.e. the scenario framework), and on the opposite face proposed solution
architectures in the form of a set of investible assets. The layers in between are highly
connected and consist of the layers articulated in the description of the bridging methodology
described above.
A.6. Decomposition Map Example
The overall decomposition approach described in Section A.5 may be best described through
the example illustrated in Figure A‐3. The example decomposition map begins with a focus on
the scenario node “Non‐State Attempt to Move Weapon”. The scenario node is decomposed
into more specific scenario sub‐nodes; in this case the analyst is concerned with “In Country
Movement” of a nuclear weapon or asset.
DSB TASK FORCE REPORT Appendix A: Unabridged Description | 86
Nuclear Treaty Monitoring Verification Technologies
UNCLASSIFIED