​

Scenarios Tab Content Plan

Version: 1.0
Status: Draft
Date: 2025-10-10
Target Phase: P2 (Scenario Modeling)

---

​

1. Overview

​

1.1 Purpose

This content plan defines the user-facing guidance, instructions, and help content for the upcoming Scenarios Tab, which will support P2 scenario modeling features including scenario CRUD operations, comparison view, sensitivity analysis, and qualitative mapping toggle. Target Audience: NGO managers and security practitioners using the calculator to model different operational scenarios and perform sensitivity analyses.

​

1.2 Related Features (P2 Backlog)

• T021: Scenario CRUD UI (duplicate, rename, delete scenarios)
• T022: Comparison View (side-by-side ROI/EAL/NPV/Payback comparison)
• T023: Sensitivity Controls (sliders for ARO, SLE, discount rate, horizon, costs)
• T024: Sub-1s Update Strategy (debounce inputs, optimistic compute)
• T025: Qualitative Mapping Switch (toggle between shadow-price and parameter-delta)

​

1.3 Content Organization

The Scenarios Tab will include:

1. Introduction & Overview: What scenario modeling is and why it’s useful
2. Scenario CRUD Instructions: How to create, duplicate, rename, and delete scenarios
3. Comparison View Guidance: Interpreting side-by-side comparisons
4. Sensitivity Analysis Guide: Using sliders to test assumptions
5. Qualitative Mapping Toggle: Switching between shadow-price and parameter-delta methods
6. Example Use Cases: 3-5 scenarios demonstrating practical applications

---

​

2. Introduction & Overview

---

​

3. Scenario CRUD Instructions

​

3.1 Creating a New Scenario

Section Title: “How to Create a New Scenario” Step-by-Step Instructions: Best Practice Tip:

Start with Baseline: Create a baseline (do-nothing) scenario first to establish the counterfactual. Then duplicate it and modify to create intervention scenarios.

---

​

4. Comparison View Guidance

​

4.1 Understanding Comparison View

Section Title: “How to Compare Scenarios Side-by-Side” Content:

The comparison view displays key metrics for multiple scenarios side-by-side, enabling quick evaluation of different strategies. Displayed Metrics:

• Expected Annual Loss (EAL): Average annual financial risk
• Net Present Value (NPV): Present value of costs
• Return on Investment (ROI %): Financial return as percentage
• Payback Period (years): Time to recover investment

How to Use:

1. Select 2-5 scenarios to compare using checkboxes in the scenario list
2. View side-by-side metrics in the comparison table
3. Sort by any metric (click column header) to identify best/worst performers
4. Export comparison table to Excel for further analysis

​

4.2 Key Drivers Analysis

Section Title: “Understanding What Drives Differences in ROI” Content:

The Key Drivers section shows which factors account for differences between scenarios:

• EAL Reduction: How much did risk decrease?
• Cost Differences: Did one scenario cost more upfront?
• Qualitative Benefits: How much qualitative value was assigned?
• Discount Rate Impact: Did different discount rates affect NPV significantly?

Example:

• Scenario A (Financial ROI −11%; QII 3.0/5.0): Moderate financial benefits but strong qualitative improvements in access and continuity.
• Scenario B (Financial ROI −5%; QII 1.8/5.0): Smaller qualitative gains and similar costs reduce the business case.
• Key Driver: Qualitative impact scores, weights, and recorded evidence notes explain most of the difference.

---

​

5. Sensitivity Analysis Guide

​

5.1 Using Sensitivity Controls

Section Title: “How to Test Sensitivity to Key Assumptions” Content:

Sensitivity analysis helps you understand how robust your ROI estimate is to changes in key assumptions. Available Controls:

• Annualized Rate of Occurrence (ARO): Adjust incident frequencies (0.00-1.00)
• Single Loss Expectancy (SLE): Adjust incident costs ($)
• Discount Rate: Adjust time value of money (3%-15%)
• Time Horizon: Adjust analysis period (1-10 years)
• Costs: Adjust cost amounts and periods

How to Use:

1

Select a scenario

1. Select a scenario

2

Click "Sensitivity Analysis" button

2. Click “Sensitivity Analysis” button

3

Use sliders or input fields

3. Use sliders or input fields to adjust parameters

4

Observe real-time updates

4. Observe real-time updates to ROI, EAL, NPV, Payback (less than 1s response time)

5

Save adjusted scenario

5. Save adjusted scenario as a new variant (e.g., “Optimistic” or “Pessimistic”)

​

5.2 Performance Expectations

Section Title: “Real-Time Updates and Performance” Content:

The calculator is designed to provide sub-1 second updates when you adjust sensitivity controls.

• Optimistic UI: Changes appear instantly in the interface
• Background Calculation: Full recalculation happens in less than 1s
• Debounced Inputs: Rapid slider movements are batched to avoid overwhelming the system

Tip: If updates feel slow, wait 1-2 seconds after adjusting a slider before making further changes.

​

5.3 Example Use Cases

Section Title: “Example Sensitivity Scenarios”

---

​

6. Communicating Qualitative Value

​

6.1 Communicating Qualitative Results

Section Title: “Sharing the Qualitative Story” Content:

• Qualitative Impact Index (QII): Always produced. Shows a weighted 0–5 score that summarises access, continuity, acceptance, and wellbeing improvements.
• Evidence notes: Capture one or two sentences explaining the change so reviewers understand the rationale.
• Suggested approach: Present Financial ROI alongside QII and the key notes; this keeps the story transparent even when quantitative ROI is negative.

​

6.2 Documenting Assumptions

Content:

• Record anchors, weights, and evidence notes in the assumption log or export.
• Include indicator values when available to support future reviews.
• Use the results narrative (summary card + action items) to highlight qualitative wins even when financial ROI is modest.

​

6.3 When to Use Parameter Delta

Content:

Use Parameter Delta Method when:

• Shadow prices feel arbitrary or lack organizational precedent
• You want to ground qualitative benefits in quantitative risk parameters
• Conducting sensitivity analysis to test method robustness
• Stakeholders may ask how qualitative improvements support mission delivery; use the QII narrative to answer that question.

Example Parameter Deltas:

• 1-point improvement in Access → 5% reduction in ARO for conflict-related incidents
• 1-point improvement in Continuity → 10% reduction in downtime costs
• 1-point improvement in Acceptance → 15% reduction in community-related incidents

⚠️ Note: Parameter delta method requires additional configuration (specify which parameters to adjust and by how much). This feature is simplified in the current version; full implementation planned for future release.

---

​

7. Example Use Cases (3-5 Scenarios)

​

7.1 Use Case 1: Baseline vs. Intervention

Scenario Name: “Justifying a Security Investment” Purpose: Demonstrate ROI of a proposed comprehensive security program Scenarios:

1. Baseline (Do-Nothing): Current state with no SRM investment
   • Incidents: 5 types, EAL = $49,250
   • Costs: $0 (no intervention)
   • Qualitative: Low scores (1-2 range)
   • Financial ROI: N/A (no costs to compare); QII: 1.3 / 5.0
2. Intervention (Comprehensive SRM): With security program
   • Incidents: Same 5 types, but reduced ARO (50% reduction)
   • Costs: $166,000 NPV (training, upgrades, personnel)
   • Qualitative: Improved scores (Access 4, Continuity 3, Acceptance 3, Wellbeing 2), QII: 3.0 / 5.0 (adjusted 2.2)
   • Financial ROI: −11%

Comparison Result: Financial ROI alone remains negative, but qualitative outcomes improve strongly across access, continuity, acceptance, and wellbeing. Communicate these improvements alongside the quantitative ROI so stakeholders see the full picture. Use in Reporting: “While quantified risk reduction does not fully recover the investment within three years, the programme unlocks strong qualitative gains (QII 3.0/5.0). Use the evidence notes to illustrate how access and continuity improved.”

​

7.2 Use Case 2: Optimistic vs. Pessimistic

Scenario Name: “Risk-Aware Planning” Purpose: Assess ROI under different risk reduction effectiveness assumptions Scenarios:

1. Optimistic (80% Risk Reduction): Security program highly effective
   • ARO reduced by 80% across all incidents
   • Financial ROI: 6%
   • QII: 3.4 / 5.0
2. Realistic (50% Risk Reduction): Baseline assumption
   • ARO reduced by 50%
   • Financial ROI: −11%
   • QII: 3.0 / 5.0
3. Pessimistic (20% Risk Reduction): Security program less effective
   • ARO reduced by 20%
   • Financial ROI: −25%
   • QII: 2.3 / 5.0

Comparison Result: Financial ROI is sensitive to risk reduction assumptions, whereas QII remains in the strong range (≈3.0). Use both metrics to communicate benefits and uncertainty.

​

7.3 Use Case 3: High-Tech vs. Community-Based Security

Scenario Name: “Comparing Security Strategies” Purpose: Evaluate different security approaches Scenarios:

1. High-Tech Security: Focus on technology and physical infrastructure
   • Costs: High CAPEX ($150k+), lower OPEX ($30k/year)
   • Qualitative: Lower community acceptance (CA scores 1-2), moderate continuity
   • Financial ROI: −8%; QII: 1.9 / 5.0
2. Community-Based Security: Focus on relationships and acceptance
   • Costs: Lower CAPEX ($50k), higher OPEX ($60k/year)
   • Qualitative: Higher community acceptance (CA scores 4-5), stronger access gains
   • Financial ROI: −5%; QII: 3.3 / 5.0

Comparison Result: While both strategies show modest financial ROI, the community-based approach delivers substantially higher qualitative impact. Present the qualitative improvements alongside the financial metrics so decision-makers understand the trade-offs.

​

7.5 Use Case 5: Time Horizon Extension

Scenario Name: “Long-Term Payback Analysis” Purpose: Assess payback over extended time horizons Comparison Result: Once the horizon extends beyond ~3.4 years, the investment pays for itself. Align analysis windows with asset/programme lifecycles so multi-year benefits are captured.

---

​

8. UI/UX Considerations (For P2 Implementation)

​

8.1 Scenario List View

Layout:

• Sidebar with scenario names (expandable/collapsible)
• Checkboxes for selecting scenarios to compare
• Icons for Duplicate (📋), Rename (✏️), Delete (🗑️)
• Color-coded labels (Baseline = blue, Intervention = green, Sensitivity = orange)

Interactions:

• Click scenario name to load in main view
• Drag-and-drop to reorder scenarios (optional)
• Search/filter scenarios by name or tag

​

8.2 Comparison View Layout

Layout:

• Table with scenarios as columns, metrics as rows
• Sortable columns (click header to sort by ROI, EAL, etc.)
• Visual indicators for best/worst values (green/red highlighting)
• “Export to Excel” button for further analysis

​

8.3 Sensitivity Controls Layout

Layout:

• Sliders for ARO, SLE, discount rate, and time horizon
• Input fields for precise numeric entry
• Text fields for proxy scenario inputs (documented separately)
• “Reset to Baseline” button to undo changes
• Real-time ROI display updating less than 1s after input

​

8.4 Accessibility

WCAG 2.1 AA Compliance:

• Keyboard navigation for all controls (Tab, Enter, Arrow keys)
• Screen reader labels for sliders and buttons
• High-contrast color scheme (minimum 4.5:1 ratio)
• Focus indicators for active controls

---

​

9. Implementation Notes for UI Team

​

9.1 Content Placement

• Inline Help: Brief explanations next to controls (e.g., “What is ARO?” tooltip)
• Contextual Panels: Expandable panels for detailed guidance (e.g., “When to Create Scenarios”)
• Help Modal: Full-page help accessible via ”?” icon in header
• Example Scenarios: Pre-loaded example data accessible via “Load Example” button

​

9.2 Performance Targets

• Scenario Load Time: less than 200ms from click to display
• Calculation Update: less than 1s from input change to results display
• Comparison View Rendering: less than 500ms for 5 scenarios
• Export Generation: less than 3s for Excel export with 10 scenarios

​

9.3 Error Handling

• Validation Errors: Display inline next to offending field (e.g., “ARO must be between 0 and 1”)
• Calculation Errors: Display modal with actionable guidance (e.g., “Cannot calculate payback: no annual benefits”)
• Network Errors: Retry with exponential backoff; display “Unable to save scenario” message after 3 failed attempts

---

​

Document Control

Version: 1.0
Status: Draft
Date: 2025-10-10
Next Review: Upon P2 implementation kickoff Change Log:

---

End of Scenarios Tab Content Plan For calculation methodologies, see the Methods Note. For data preparation, see the Pilot Pack & Data Readiness Guide.