Handling incomplete information in OASC, AOSB, and AIB planning exercises

Every planning exercise candidates face, whether at OASC, AOSB, or AIB, is built with gaps in it. Resources go unaccounted for, timings are vague, and key details are sometimes simply left out. This isn't a flaw in the exercise, it's the point of it. Boards want to see how candidates think when the picture isn't complete, because that's closer to how real decisions get made than any exercise with all the facts laid out neatly in advance.

Why the gaps are deliberate

A planning exercise with every detail supplied would only test whether a candidate can follow instructions. Removing information changes what's being tested: judgement under uncertainty, and whether someone can make a sound decision without waiting to be told everything first. Assessors at OASC, AOSB, and AIB are all looking for the same underlying quality here, even if the scenarios differ. A candidate who freezes the moment something isn't specified is showing the board exactly the thing they don't want to see in a future officer.

The mistake most candidates make

The most common response to incomplete information is to try to resolve it before moving on, hunting for a detail that was never going to be given, or building a plan around an assumption that's never stated as an assumption. Both eat into time that should be spent on the actual decision. The second is more dangerous, because a hidden assumption that turns out wrong can unravel a plan the assessor initially rated well, simply because the reasoning behind it was never made visible.

How to actually handle it

The fix is straightforward in principle: state the assumption out loud, then decide anyway. If a resource's condition isn't specified, say what you're assuming about it and why, then carry on. This does two things. It shows the assessor your reasoning rather than hiding it, and it means if the assumption is wrong, you've flagged it rather than let it quietly sink the plan.

Gaps that genuinely can't be assumed away are worth naming as risks rather than ignoring. A plan that says "resource X's availability isn't confirmed, so there's a risk this timeline slips" reads as considered, not weak. Boards mark this well because it shows awareness of what you don't know, which is a different skill to simply having a confident answer for everything.

It's also worth timeboxing how long you spend trying to fill a gap before moving on. A minute or two deciding how to treat missing information is reasonable. Beyond that, it's costing you the time you need for the rest of the plan, and the board is watching that trade-off as closely as the decision itself.

This is one of the things MAP's Planning Exercise Preparation Guide walks through in more detail, with worked examples of how to flag an assumption without it reading as a weakness in the plan.

Staying flexible as more comes in

Group exercises in particular tend to introduce new information partway through, sometimes via an assessor's inject. Candidates who've built their plan around unstated assumptions often struggle here, because they haven't got a clear record of what they assumed and why. Candidates who flagged their assumptions from the start find it much easier to adjust, because they can see exactly which part of the plan the new information affects.

This is a skill that improves fast with practice, but it's genuinely difficult to build alone. Working through planning exercises with someone watching your process, rather than just marking the final plan, is usually what closes the gap. MAP's coaching sessions and the Planning Exercise Preparation Guide are both built around this, giving candidates the chance to practise handling incomplete information the way it actually shows up at OASC, AOSB, and AIB.