01
Local crisis staff
Protects residents, coordinates field activity, and defines the evacuation threshold under limited information.
VORTEX UNIVERSITY LAB | SCENARIO PACK 01
High Water 48H
Flooding, infrastructure, and evacuation decisions
A fictional decision scenario running in the Vortex application. Teams work with diverging forecasts, a power disruption, and false alarms, then allocate limited resources and justify decisions about public protection and evacuation.
This page describes the working scenario. The simulation itself is presented during a guided session in the application.
SCENARIO 01
48H
48H
scenario horizon
4
controlled rounds
4
team perspectives
12 + 12
evidence and action options
SITUATION
Information changes faster than the team's confidence.
The scenario begins with an ambiguous picture of a flooding threat. Subsequent rounds introduce conflicting signals, infrastructure constraints, and pressure to act. Participants decide which information has the greatest value, which hypotheses should remain open, and when to move from monitoring to action.
Decision question
How should a team protect people and infrastructure when resources are limited, evidence is uncertain, and time pressure is increasing?
Decisions in the scenario
- 01which information to verify first
- 02how to allocate limited resources and team attention
- 03when to initiate protection or evacuation measures
- 04which signal would justify changing the decision
TEAM PERSPECTIVES
One crisis. Four different responsibilities.
02
National coordination centre
Allocates support across affected areas, compares regional needs, and maintains a shared operational picture despite diverging forecasts.
03
Critical infrastructure operators
Prioritise backup power, service continuity, and the sequence for restoring systems required to protect the public.
04
Public information and cooperation team
Verifies reports, designs warnings for different zones, and limits the effects of false alarms.
SEQUENCE
Four rounds. One decision that must later be defended.
Each round adds new material and requires the team to update its assessment. The sequence is controlled so the facilitator can compare how different teams reasoned through the same situation.
01
T-18 | Diverging forecasts
Before the peak, teams choose what to verify, which no-regret preparations to begin, and the observable threshold for evacuation.
02
T+03 | Communications and a levee rumour
A communications failure and an unverified report force teams to verify the source of flooding, allocate backup power, and define the warning area.
03
T+16 | Evacuation bottlenecks
Teams set transport priorities, define allocation criteria, and account for people missing from official registers.
04
T+40 | Return and service recovery
After the peak passes, teams define return conditions, the order of service recovery, and communications for the next 6, 24, and 72 hours.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Practice the decision process, not guessing one correct answer.
- 01assessing the value and limits of information
- 02maintaining competing hypotheses
- 03prioritising action under resource constraints
- 04justifying a decision and its change condition
- 05reconstructing reasoning during the debrief
SESSION OUTPUT
A trace that remains available after the rounds end.
The application structures the selected information, leading hypothesis, alternative, decision, rationale, and change condition. The facilitator uses the result to compare teams and conduct the debrief.
decision briefdecision revision tracedebrief materialtransfer microcase.vortexrun fileprintable or PDF report
SCOPE AND BOUNDARIES
A working scenario with clearly stated boundaries.
The current version uses a fictional case and synthetic baseline data. It includes four controlled rounds, participant and facilitator views, and local result export. It does not include user accounts, dynamic branching, or automated student assessment.
Course adaptation
A pilot can account for the syllabus, learning outcomes, cohort size, session format, and agreed materials. Data, sources, expert review, and acceptance criteria are agreed before pricing.
VORTEX X UNIVERSITY
Let us see whether High Water 48H fits your course.
Return to University Lab and describe the course, cohort, and intended learning outcomes. We will use that context to agree the presentation or pilot scope and prepare pricing.