War-game the decision before the world does.

A plan that looks robust on paper often collapses the moment a competitor, regulator, or adversary reacts. War-gaming surfaces those reactions in advance — the second- and third-order moves, the coalitions that form, the responses no one priced in.

It answers the question a static analysis cannot: not what will happen, but what happens when the other side gets a vote.

Three lenses do the work, in sequence. The actors lens maps who matters and what drives them. The scenarios lens sets the conditions. Then the challenge lens red-teams the plan — assessing the adversary's real capability, designing their attack vectors, steel-manning their best counter-move, and playing devil's advocate against your own assumptions.

The result is move and countermove — what you do, how others respond, what that forces next — tested across plausible futures, with the points where your strategy needs a hedge made explicit.

A map of the actors and their likely moves, the contingencies that change the game, and the points at which your strategy needs a hedge — board-grade, every step traceable, in days rather than the weeks a live exercise demands.

Dragonfly's founder, Anthea Roberts, was profiled by the Australian Financial Review as "the international lawyer teaching AI to war game" — the approach this page describes, applied to real strategic and geopolitical problems.