This version explicitly differentiates junior, mid-level, and senior expectations, without changing the core scenarios. What changes is what counts as success, what authority is assumed, and what failures are unacceptable.

This is designed so a PAO or FO can run the same scenario three times across cohorts and get very different learning outcomes.

PD TABLETOP EXERCISES — GRADED DIFFICULTY VERSION

How to Use This Grading

Each scenario can be run at three levels:

• Level 1 — Junior Staff (Entry / New to PD / New to Post)
• Level 2 — Mid-Level Staff (Portfolio Owners / Supervisors)
• Level 3 — Senior Staff (PAO, FO, Section Chiefs)

The scenario text stays the same.
What changes is:

• assumed authority,
• expected judgment,
• tolerance for error,
• required outputs.

LEVEL 1 — JUNIOR STAFF

Audience

• ELO FSOs
• New LES
• Staff with drafting or monitoring roles
• Staff without clearance authority

Primary Learning Goal

Recognize when you are out of authority and escalate correctly.

What “Good” Looks Like

• Identifies risk correctly
• Does not improvise
• Uses holding language
• Escalates early
• Documents clearly

What Is Acceptable

• Conservative decisions
• Deferring judgment
• Asking clarifying questions

What Is NOT Acceptable

• Speaking for the Mission
• Guessing policy
• Assuming background/off-the-record safety

Example: Scenario 1 (Breaking News)

Junior Expected Output

• Draft holding statement with neutral language
• Escalation note to supervisor identifying:
  • risk,
  • deadline,
  • what cannot be said.

If they try to answer the press substantively:
→ Fail the exercise.

LEVEL 2 — MID-LEVEL STAFF

Audience

• Portfolio owners
• LES supervisors
• PD officers with routine clearance authority
• Acting section leads

Primary Learning Goal

Balance speed, authority, and risk while protecting the institution.

What “Good” Looks Like

• Makes a decision, not just escalation
• Uses cleared language creatively but safely
• Assigns ownership
• Anticipates FO concerns
• Produces a usable product

What Is Acceptable

• Narrow judgment calls
• Time-bounded decisions
• Conditional responses

What Is NOT Acceptable

• Pushing risk upward without analysis
• Letting ambiguity linger
• Allowing monkey transfer

Example: Scenario 3 (After-Hours Digital Post)

Mid-Level Expected Output

• Explicit go/no-go decision
• Justification referencing clearance logic
• Clear next step if held

If they say “I’d ask the FO” without analysis:
→ Partial fail.

LEVEL 3 — SENIOR STAFF

Audience

• PAO
• DCM
• Section Chiefs
• Acting Ambassadors
• Senior LES managers

Primary Learning Goal

Absorb risk deliberately and protect subordinates through structure.

What “Good” Looks Like

• Owns the decision explicitly
• Uses judgment under uncertainty
• Shields staff from blame
• Sets precedent and guidance
• Thinks one step ahead (second-order effects)

What Is Acceptable

• Principled risk-taking
• Narrow deviations from past practice
• Clear after-action reasoning

What Is NOT Acceptable

• Ambiguity about authority
• Retroactive blame
• Forcing juniors to “guess”

Example: Scenario 2 (“Just Background”)

Senior Expected Output

• Declines engagement OR tightly defines attribution
• Explicitly models language staff should use
• Documents decision and rationale

If they say “it depends” without deciding:
→ Fail the exercise.

SCENARIO-BY-SCENARIO GRADING SNAPSHOT

FACILITATOR NOTE (IMPORTANT)

When running mixed-level groups:

• Do not correct juniors too early — let seniors see the risk juniors face.
• Force seniors to decide — no “we’ll see.”
• Protect LES voices — explicitly ask them where systems fail.

Silence from LES in a tabletop is a signal, not success.

What This Enables (Strategically)

This graded structure allows you to:

• reuse the same material across the Mission,
• normalize principled risk-taking at senior levels,
• reduce fear-based paralysis at junior levels,
• surface where authority is unclear by design, not accident.