D is for Driver: Why the Decision-Maker Must Be First in the Algorithmic Battlespace

Every commander knows that speed kills — but in the algorithmic battlespace, it’s delay that kills faster.

My recent paper, “From OODA to D-U-A,” argues that we must invert the classic decision cycle, moving from Observe-Orient-Decide-Act to Decide-Understand-Act (D-U-A).

This remains the most provocative element of the IDDI thesis because it questions the very starting point of competitive strategy: How can you decide before you observe? The answer is simple — and uncomfortable: in the algorithmic battlespace, waiting to observe is waiting to lose.

The future tempo of operations demands that the decision-maker, not the data stream, drive the loop.

1. The Fatal Latency of Sequential Command

The traditional OODA structure is sequential. One must wait for a stimulus (Observe), interpret it (Orient), and only then act (Decide).

In a dogfight, this latency is seconds; in a distributed, multi-domain enterprise, it is organisational friction — hours or days. The legacy Information Requirements Management (IRM) process, born of OODA’s “Observe” logic, exemplifies this failure. Commanders request data; staffs interpret; analysts collect; reports return — long after opportunity has expired.

At the operational level, this delay equates to a 48–72-hour deficit between awareness and action. In the algorithmic age, such latency is not prudence — it is paralysis.

2. Inversion: Intent as the Initiating Schema

Wisdom is not knowing everything — it is knowing when to decide.

The D-U-A model inverts the sequence.

It begins not with the unknown, but with intent — the commander’s decision, expressed as purpose, acceptable risk, and required tempo. This inversion does not reject Boyd’s philosophy; it fulfils it. Boyd taught that Orientation is always filtered by internal purpose and bias. D-U-A simply makes that filtering explicit:

• OODA: External observation precedes internal purpose.

• D-U-A: Internal purpose defines external observation.

By making the decision the initiating data schema, the entire ISR-T enterprise aligns around a singular aim — to generate Tailored Understanding in direct support of the commander’s will.

3. Custody, Courage, and Wisdom

With great tempo comes greater responsibility.

Placing Decide first means the commander must reclaim custody of the decision — not merely authorise actions but define the decision architecture itself. That demands courage:

• To declare what decisions will matter before the battle begins.

• To set risk thresholds—how much uncertainty you are willing to accept.

• To define time windows beyond which understanding loses value.

This is not algorithmic control; it is human leadership.

As the 1996 Wisdom Warfare study foresaw, “knowledge coupled with good judgment” is the decisive edge of the future commander. Wisdom is not knowing everything — it is knowing when to decide, how much to risk, and when to stop waiting for perfect data. The D-U-A topology makes that wisdom actionable.

4. From Requests to Problem Ownership

This philosophical shift is realised through Problem-Centric Activity (PCA) — replacing CCIRs and IRM with direct problem ownership. Every operation begins with a defined problem rather than an information request.

• Decision points are mapped in advance; understanding levels are set against risk and time; and action is triggered when either the confidence threshold is achieved or time expires.

• This keeps the commander, analyst, and environment continuously connected — not by sequential reporting, but by shared cognition.

5. The Reconnected Command Chain

Starting with Decide delivers three outcomes:

• Unity of Cognition: Humans and machines work in the same problem space, synchronised by purpose.

• Temporal Precision: Understanding is generated exactly when decisions are due — no earlier, no later.

• Moral Agency: The commander retains full ethical ownership of each decision, because the system executes his or her declared intent, risk, and constraints — not the algorithm’s curiosity.

6. The Wisdom Imperative

Technology will accelerate cognition, but wisdom will still command it.

Machines will filter and fuse data; humans must still discern and judge.

Wisdom is not a soft virtue — it is the decisive control layer between understanding and action. In Boydian terms, the wise commander is not the fastest observer, but the most coherent decider.

In algorithmic war, that coherence — custody of decision, courage in uncertainty, and clarity of intent — will define victory.