.svg){kind=icon}
Learn
AI for COA generation is decision-support software that proposes, compares, and risk-ranks courses of action during military planning, surfacing assumptions and risk for the commander, who stays in command of the decision.
AI for COA generation is decision-support software that proposes, compares, and risk-ranks courses of action during military planning, surfacing assumptions and risk for the commander, who stays in command of the decision.
Planners build and test courses of action under time pressure, often across fragmented reporting, running doctrine, and lessons learned. The hard part is not producing options; it is comparing them honestly - showing what each one assumes, where it is exposed, and how doctrine applies. AI can accelerate the mechanical work of COA development and wargaming without taking the decision away from the commander. The requirement is that every proposed option and every risk judgment is traceable to doctrine and to the evidence behind it, so staff can trust it, challenge it, and defend it in a decision brief.
Torch.AI builds government-owned reasoning infrastructure that complements existing planning systems rather than replacing them. The reasoning stays doctrine-grounded and auditable, and VICTOR brings doctrine, lessons learned, and institutional knowledge into the planner's context at the moment of use.
It is software that reads the planning picture and drafts candidate courses of action for the staff to refine. It does not pick the plan. In JP 5-0 Joint Planning, COA development, analysis, and wargaming are steps the planning staff owns; AI speeds the drafting and comparison while the human stays accountable for the output.
AI can run candidate COAs against likely enemy actions and conditions, flag branches and sequels, and expose where an option breaks. This gives the staff more reps in less time. The commander and staff still adjudicate the wargame, set the assumptions, and choose what to carry forward.
It pairs pattern-based models with explicit, rule-based doctrine so a ranking can be explained, not just scored. Risk is assessed against a structured method such as the Joint Risk Analysis Methodology in CJCSM 3105.01B, so each COA's risk rating ties to a defined scale rather than an opaque number.
No. The commander stays in command of the loop. The system grounds each recommendation in doctrine and returns an auditable, traceable judgment, so when doctrine does not support a recommendation, it says so instead of guessing. This matches federal direction on human oversight and pre-deployment testing for high-impact AI in OMB M-25-21 and the DoD principles of AI ethics (Responsible, Equitable, Traceable, Reliable, Governable).
| Capability | Product | Role in COA work |
|---|---|---|
| Make data meaningful | NEXUS | Turns fragmented reporting into usable inputs for planning |
| Make relationships understandable | HALO | Fuses the graph of actors, units, and terrain for COA analysis |
| Make institutional knowledge usable | VICTOR | Brings doctrine and lessons learned into the planner's context |
| Let non-technical users build flows | Workbench | Lets planners assemble COA comparison flows without code |
It is software that reads the planning picture and drafts candidate courses of action for the staff to refine. It does not pick the plan. In JP 5-0 Joint Planning, COA development, analysis, and wargaming are steps the planning staff owns; AI speeds the drafting and comparison while the human stays accountable for the output.
AI can run candidate COAs against likely enemy actions and conditions, flag branches and sequels, and expose where an option breaks. This gives the staff more reps in less time. The commander and staff still adjudicate the wargame, set the assumptions, and choose what to carry forward.
It pairs pattern-based models with explicit, rule-based doctrine so a ranking can be explained, not just scored. Risk is assessed against a structured method such as the Joint Risk Analysis Methodology in CJCSM 3105.01B, so each COA's risk rating ties to a defined scale rather than an opaque number.
No. The commander stays in command of the loop. The system grounds each recommendation in doctrine and returns an auditable, traceable judgment, so when doctrine does not support a recommendation, it says so instead of guessing. This matches federal direction on human oversight and pre-deployment testing for high-impact AI in OMB M-25-21 and the DoD principles of AI ethics.
NEXUS makes data meaningful, HALO makes relationships understandable through graph fusion, VICTOR makes institutional knowledge usable in context, and Workbench lets non-technical users build COA comparison flows.
SHARE