Four studies, one tabletop exercise: compare solutions and decisions for a municipal civil protection plan.
Explore the project and its context through these documents.
Adriano Pantaleo. From comparative analysis to the tabletop exercise: one volume making the method, observation tools and limits of the exercise explicit.
Edition 1.0, 27 October 2026. Italian text. Preview: cover, authorship, contents and exercise sequence.
Full document available on request.
Compare four teams’ solutions and observe how they are applied to the municipal civil protection plan through scenarios, map-based decisions and peer evaluation.
Method Designer, Lecturer, Exercise Designer and Lead Facilitator. 16 total teaching hours in wargaming theory, design and conduct, including the exercise designed and facilitated in Palmanova on 26 June 2026. Four groups; scientific and methodological thesis support and co-supervision of one thesis. Author of the methodological chapters collected in the 49-page corpus, including comparative coding and exercise design.
Four independent studies inform 24 hypothesised problems, 16 events that reveal issues and 30 solutions. The event → latent problem → trigger → penalty chain connects a map-based sandbox, negotiation and consequences.
Four studies compared and one exercise completed. The available observation forms document six of the twelve team comparisons.
A known technological risk that is peripheral to dominant local planning scenarios; verify interdependencies with alerting, roads, evacuation, tourism and external plans.
Possible hidden dependency or single point of failure in the Municipality → gate → Port of Salerno → embarkation-system chain.
Complete the collection and review of observation forms, reconcile penalties and examine similarities and differences between solutions.
The corpus by Adriano Pantaleo brings together comparative analysis, exercise design, working templates, results, limitations and appendices. The complete 49-page document is available on request; the preview contains four selected pages.
Opens a pre-filled email to info@giocasulserio.it.
We turned four independent analyses of Pompeii's municipal civil protection plan into a peer-based decision exercise. The purpose was to observe what happens when a problem moves from a written document onto the game table.
A real municipal setting · earthquake, volcanic, flood and industrial hazards · residents and visitors
Comparison with slide 15 of the presentation. The remainder of 71 shown on that slide comes from subtracting counts covering different sets of comparisons. Source for the updated comparison: methodological corpus, edition 1.0, p. 48. The same six comparisons total 101 points in the corpus and 109 in the presentation: an eight-point discrepancy across three comparisons. The overall 180-point total covers twelve comparisons. Reconciliation requires the completed observation forms and any agreed corrections.
18 slides, opening on Google Drive in a new tab.
Four selected pages from the 49-page corpus by Adriano Pantaleo. The document is in Italian. Open each page to explore the preview; request the complete method by email.
Title, author and scope of the methodological corpus.
Adriano Pantaleo’s contribution, authorship of the group studies and source documents.
The two parts, working templates, appendices, bibliography and editorial notes.
The receiving team’s actions and the sequence from written studies to discussion of hypotheses.
Teams A–D independently identified candidate problems, possible solutions and revealing events.
The controller presents an event while keeping the problem card hidden. The receiving team works with partial information.
Command centre, shelters, streets, residents and responders need concrete locations and an operational sequence.
Choices activate observable conditions and tactical, communication or structural penalties, followed by a comparison of solutions.
Team C's problem C1 concerns the actual availability of temporary shelter areas. All three receiving teams identified it; their responses nevertheless earned different penalties.
The useful question: why can a shared diagnosis lead to different assessments? Recognising a problem, proposing a solution and placing an operational response on the map are separate observations.
Source: Team C observation forms, appendices 1–3, C1 comparison. Penalties describe the outcomes of decisions made in the game.
Which issues recur across independent analyses? Where do the dossiers identify different vulnerabilities?
Do observed choices align with the solutions imagined earlier? Which omissions, alternatives and unexpected outcomes appear?
The matrix helps identify similarities and differences. Individual cases are being classified through coding of the observation forms.
A shelter listed in a plan still needs checks for actual availability, safety and workable alternatives.
A school evacuation prompted the option of allowing parents to retrieve children; the debrief noted potential exposure to contaminated air.
Teams discussed how the municipal command centre, Prefecture and fire brigade should coordinate with external emergency planning.
team comparisons with accessible observation forms
penalty points in the six-comparison subset of the presentation
total penalty points across twelve comparisons in the methodological corpus
The exercise revealed decisions, omissions and different responses to the same problems. These observations of in-game behaviour guide further technical review of the municipal plan.
