> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/workflow-guides/analyse/defence-context.md).

# Defence Context

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Intelligence cycle → Analyse**.

Apply human-security, information-environment and operating-environment lenses without turning assumptions or unresolved adoption guidance into fact.

**Who uses this:** Analyst, Reviewer, Author\
**Open in CORTEX:** `/analyse`\
**In-app guide:** `/help?topic=defence-context`

## Expected result

An exact Analysis revision has scoped descriptive context, affected groups, uncertainty, dependencies and accountable specialist response.

## Before you start

* Open the exact authorised Analysis and confirm its question and current revision; Analysis write permission is needed to retain context.
* Acquire Ready Evidence material and an exact quotation for every Observation. The prerequisite panel and statement step show what is still missing.
* Arrange an eligible specialist reviewer who did not author any retained lens content.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

## Choose and scope lenses

The guided form first requires one to three applicable lenses, then checks each title, applicability, optional dates, geographic scope and Product heading. A red step or missing-input list shows what needs attention; Back retains your entries.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Separate claim types

Mark each statement Observation, Assumption or Inference. Resolve exact Evidence for observations and separately record affected groups, uncertainty and information gaps.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Expose dependencies

Name cross-domain dependencies, possible unintended consequences and a specific question for the appropriate specialist. These entries do not create tasking in another domain.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Retain the revision

Optionally pin relevant F05 sessions, then review every step and give a 10–500 character change reason. Context has no partial draft: Retain becomes available only when all required steps are valid. Discard draft restores the loaded version.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Record accountable challenge

An independent reviewer declares their capacity, outcome, response and limitations. Treat a response labelled Historical lens as superseded context and obtain a fresh response before relying on the changed lens.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Prepare controlled output

Use the governed Product workflow to select the exact server-validated extension snapshot. Complete normal Product review and release; the context record itself is not dissemination approval.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Is every observation supported by exact Evidence?
* Are assumptions and inferences visibly typed?
* Are affected groups descriptive rather than labelled as threats?
* Are uncertainty, gaps and unintended consequences explicit?
* Is the specialist response current for the lens content?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>Why can I not save an observation?</summary>

An observation needs at least one exact resolved Evidence quotation within the Analysis requirement and handling. Use Assumption or Inference only when that is the truthful claim type.

</details>

<details>

<summary>What should I do after a version conflict?</summary>

Your draft remains visible. Compare or copy what you need, then choose Reload retained version to discard the draft and fetch the current assessment.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why is a specialist response historical?</summary>

The target lens changed after the response. The response remains in history, but a current Product projection labels it historical; arrange fresh specialist review.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why can I not respond with review permission?</summary>

Any author of retained lens content is not independent. Ask another currently authorised reviewer and record their real specialist capacity and limits.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* Analysts must not describe an optional catalogue lens as mandatory UK policy without a retained adoption source.
* Review permission records accountability, not professional qualification. Contributors cannot independently respond to their own lens content.
* Current access and Evidence visibility are rechecked; an older snapshot is never an access bypass.

**Reference and scope:** Implementation support for optional UK Defence contextual analysis. Detailed JSP 985 clauses, AJP/JDP adoption decisions and sponsor overlays remain unresolved in the retained source register; the workflow does not certify compliance.

## Related workflows

* [Develop and independently review an assessment](broken://pages/79db57a6c6245feef3fb58e4fe6d4a507b2a74a0)
* [Retain analytical techniques, interpretations and challenge](broken://pages/614768db0479443acb2254a5d08e147d50af4233)
* [Find evidence and select exact retained passages](broken://pages/e6eab51e146c4db1e002b720557a5faea932e41c)
* [Author an intelligence Product and inspect its exports](file:///7397340/product/products.md)