How should the Requirements writer / operational analyst decompose requirements sanity and testability into doctrine, organisation, training, materiel, data, people, facilities and sustainment choices?
Requirements drift from mission need and become hard to test or procure.
Answer block
What the page can settle.
Door
Capability decomposition
Mapped to the Bid Evidence Pack route.
Buyer
Requirements writer / operational analyst
Requirements lead or OR analyst or adjacent programme/capability/commercial sponsor
Fit
How Lansary reads it.
DEE decomposes requirements sanity and testability into mission outcomes, constraints, measures of effectiveness, evidence needs and acquisition/test hooks.
First step
DOTMLPF-style capability tree, dependencies, priority gaps
Sell as a capability decomposition sprint.
Start with named public records.
- https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-industrial-strategy-2025-making-defence-an-engine-for-growth
This page is a routing surface. The private Evidence Pack tests the named subject, dates, source boundary and decision consequence.