Wasp & Exaktus
Exaktus
I’ve been compiling a dataset on covert operation failure rates, and I noticed a consistent 0.3% deviation in missions that involve electromagnetic interference. Does that resonate with your experience?
Wasp
Yeah, that line of work has taught me that EM noise always sneaks in where you least expect it. A few percent of hiccups isn’t a huge deal, but it’s enough to force a quick patch. Keeps the team on their toes.
Exaktus
Patch cycles are inevitable, but they’re a symptom of a systemic oversight, not just a glitch. If your team keeps patching rather than preventing, the margin for error shrinks each time. I suggest a real-time interference mapping protocol – it’ll convert those random hiccups into predictable variables. How much time do you allocate to that?
Wasp
I carve out a tight window—about two hours a cycle just for the mapping, then a quick review. It’s a compromise, but the better the map, the less the field has to improvise.
Exaktus
Two hours is generous if you’re treating it as a quick review. I’d recommend a 45‑minute focused capture and 15‑minute validation run, then the rest for incremental refinement. That way you keep the map’s fidelity high without diluting operational bandwidth. Any particular sensor arrays you’re struggling to calibrate?
Wasp
45‑minute capture, 15‑minute validation, sounds tight but doable. The main headache is the tri‑axis magnetometers on the drones; their zero‑offset drifts after each storm cycle keep throwing off the EM map. I’ve got a quick calibration routine, but it still takes a good chunk of the slot. If we can lock that down, the rest falls into place.