text: Chapter 2
  assumptions that later require validation to continue with planning. Planners track these assumptions, align
  them with an open RFI, and consider them during risk analysis. During the unit’s COA analysis (war gaming),
  planners help refine the estimate and may add support to key planning assumptions about probable enemy
  responses to planned friendly activity. The greater the number of assumptions underpinning a deception plan,
  the higher the risk that one or more assumptions will prove false and threaten the plan’s success.
  2-20. The deception running estimate identifies key enemy decision makers and develops individual or group
  profiles. The analysis of the enemy military decision-making structure includes identifying key decision
  makers who exercise some level of direct control over the enemy capabilities. These individuals or groups
  are potential deception targets. As such, the MDO works with the G-2 to collect as much available
  information relating to their backgrounds, psychological profiles, personal relationships, key influencers,
  known biases, predispositions or vulnerabilities, current perceptions, and previous behavior in similar
  circumstances. With that information, the planner identifies the enemy’s most probable and most dangerous
  COAs related to the deception goal.
  2-21. The MDO briefs the initial running estimate to the commander in private during mission analysis to
  seek approval of the deception goal and its objectives, receive refined commander’s planning guidance for
  deception, and ensure nesting within the supported plan. The commander may provide additional guidance
  concerning specific deception COAs the staff should address when preparing estimates. Once approved, the
  deception goal and its objectives become the focus for all subsequent deception planning.
  THE ARMY TACTICAL DECEPTION PLANNING PROCESS
  2-22. The Army tactical deception planning process nests in the steps of the Army’s military decisionmaking
  process (known as MDMP). The deception plan supports the OPLAN. Planners nest and integrate the
  deception plan with the OPLAN to achieve the deception’s desired effect. A successful deception plan
  unfolds logically and realistically. Deception planning is an iterative process that requires continual
  reexamination of its goals, objectives, targets, and means. The early integration of deception in the planning
  cycle ensures optimum application of resources and maximizes the potential for overall success. Table 2-1
  shows the Army tactical deception planning process nesting in the military decisionmaking process.
  Table 2-1. The Army tactical deception planning process in the military decisionmaking
  process
  Army tactical deception planning process Military decisionmaking process
  Deception preplanning. → Step 1: Receipt of mission
  Step 1: Determine the deception goal and the deception → Step 2: Mission analysis
  objective.
  Step 2: Identify and analyze the deception target.
  Step 3: Course of action
  Step 3: Identify desired perceptions of the deception target. development
  Step 4: Develop deception observables and means.
  Step 5: Develop the deception story. → Step 4: Course of action analysis
  Step 6: Develop the deception event schedule. and war gaming
  Step 7: Develop OPSEC and other protection measures.
  Step 8: Develop feedback criteria. Step 5: Course of action
  comparison
  Step 9: Develop a termination plan.
  Step 6: Course of action approval
  Step 10: Produce Appendix 14 (Military Deception) to → Step 7: Orders production,
  Annex C (Operations) dissemination, and transition
  OPSEC operations security
  2-23. Because of its inherent sensitivity, MDOs usually need to protect access to deception planning. As a
  result, deception planning occurs in an access-controlled area rather than through open discussion in the plans
  shop. Key staff members and leadership who are part of the deception planning effort plan discretely to
  integrate and deconflict deception planning outputs into the overall planning effort. Planners balance the need