CONDITIONS–DECISIONS MATRIX MODEL OF SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL PATTERNS IN SMALL INFANTRY UNITS MANAGEMENT UNDER «BATTLEFIELD TRANSPARENCY» AND RELATED CONSTRAINTS

Abstract

The mass use of unmanned systems, persistent aerial observation, and the fragmentation of engagements create “battlefield transparency” conditions, under which the cost of situational assessment errors, coordination failures, and loss of small-unit controllability increases. In the Ukrainian experience summary training manual (2022-2025) Infantry Small-Group Tactics, these changes are captured through recurring managerial principles; however, they are dispersed across the text and require a formal, reproducible analytical description. This paper aims to construct a reproducible “conditions–decisions” matrix (C×D) as a model of socio-psychological patterns in small infantry units under battlefield transparency and related constraints, without reproducing operational tactical algorithms. A categorical content analysis was conducted using a predefined codebook (20 codes: C1–C6 conditions; D1–D10 decision classes; K1–K4 explanatory mechanisms as an interpretive layer) and dominant coding rules (one dominant C and one dominant D per unit; K was recorded only when explicitly marked). The corpus was built via full-text screening of the manual and included all units containing an explicit “condition/context → managerial decision/principle” linkage (N=134). At the condition level, C1 “observability/battlefield transparency” (32.1%) and C5 “threat intensity/risk of engagement” (28.4%) dominate. At the decision-class level, D8 “signature management/control of observability cues” (20.9%) and D2 “maintaining controllability” (20.1%) prevail, followed by D1 “role clarity” (14.9%), D6 “adaptation without template thinking” (11.2%), and D4 “brief unambiguous commands/signals” (10.4%). The matrix core is formed by C1–D8 (13 cases) and C5–D2 (11 cases), whereas C2 “communication constraints/electronic warfare effects” is characterized by a D8 + D4 configuration with additional controllability/initiative components. The findings are interpreted as reconstructing three primary control loops (observability, communication constraints/EW, high threat intensity) and a coordination (supporting) loop that captures cross-cutting organizational-communication mechanics of action alignment. The interpretation is additionally anchored in the manual’s concluding analytical section, which emphasizes: (a) the shift from maneuver-centric approaches to small-group tactics with a tendency toward further downsizing; (b) the non-universality of tactical techniques across different terrain types; and (c) a training focus shift toward controllability, action alignment, and competition in the electromagnetic spectrum. This linkage helps treat the C×D matrix not as “frequencies per se” but as a reproducible reconstruction of the document’s internal managerial logic, i.e., which conditions systematically cue which decision classes. The C×D matrix turns a training text into a reproducible analytical description and provides a basis for testable hypotheses and training program design focused on decision-making control loops.