text: Army Methodologies Used for Planning Activities
  Table A-4. Step 4: Course of action analysis and war-gaming
  STEP 5: COURSE OF ACTION COMPARISON
  A-46. The commander and staff evaluate COAs war-gamed objectively and independently against the
  evaluation criteria established during Step 2: mission analysis and refined during Step 3: COA development.
  The goal is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each COA and select a COA with the highest
  probability of success, and to develop an OPLAN or OPORD further.
  A-47. The CEMA section conducts advantage and disadvantage analysis using a decision matrix to evaluate
  each COA using the evaluation criteria. The CEMA section highlights the advantages and disadvantages of
  cyberspace operations and EW for each COA concerning the overall mission. The CEMA section presents
  those findings to the commander and other staff members. Feedback received in response to the CEMA
  working group’s RFS contributes to the numerous determining factors during the advantage and disadvantage
  analysis.
  A-48. Findings from the advantage and disadvantage analysis conducted by all staff are implemented into a
  decision matrix for the commander to compare and evaluate COAs thoroughly and logically. A decision
  matrix assists the commander in making the best decision.
  A-49. After analysis and comparison, the staff identifies the preferred COA and makes a recommendation. If
  the staff cannot reach a decision, the chief of staff (executive officer) decides which COA to recommend.
  The staff then delivers a decision briefing to the commander with the chief of staff highlighting changes to
  each COA resulting from the war game. Table A-5, page A-12, illustrates the actions and key outputs of the
  CEMA working group during Step 5: COA comparison.