IAMD

Problem

Mission Crew Commanders defending high-value assets against cruise missile threats have seconds to weigh missile proximity, available defenses, and mission risk before making an intercept call. Accelint needed a command-and-control prototype sharp enough to hold up under military scrutiny and support a live $62M–$100M Air Force contract pursuit.

Constraints

Solo design effort. Design had to conform to established military doctrine (ATO, ROE, MIL-STD-2525 symbology), be validated by SMEs and retired military leads, and hold up under scrutiny from Air Force stakeholders. No access to cleared or classified data sources to feed the AI's COA generation; had to design and validate the prototype credibly within that gap for a live contract review.

Process

Before high-fidelity work began, sat down with SMEs and retired military leads to learn doctrine well enough to reason through a lane of defense like a Mission Crew Commander. That research shaped wireframes for the dashboard, COA generation/review, and engagement flow, worked out screen by screen before visual design started.

Key Decision

Designed a Course-of-Action manager surfacing AI-suggested defensive strategies, with time-to-intercept urgency cues built in so commanders could act under live intercept pressure.

Solution

Full dashboard, COA generation/review, and engagement flow.

Key Outcomes

• 01Supported a $62M–$100M Air Force contract pursuit with a tactically accurate C2 prototype
• 02Learned military doctrine directly from SMEs to hold up under scrutiny

Prototype Walkthrough

Reflection

The role was eliminated before the data question could be resolved: the AI's COA generation was designed and demoed without access to cleared intelligence sources. That's the open thread, how to design credibly around a data-access constraint like that. Left open for now.