Start with the question
A decision crosses several reference categories. “Can I get there before the circle moves?” needs a HUD countdown and a route estimate; a circle table supplies only part of the answer. Separate the rule you can look up from the situation you must observe.
Use this map when you know the symptom but not the relevant page. The links lead to evidence; the missing-input column names what no static article can infer about your current match.
Question → evidence → missing input
| Question | Reference | Observe yourself |
|---|---|---|
| When does the boundary move? | Blue Zone timings: waits, shrinks and match duration | Phase, mode and live HUD |
| Does the trip fit? | Match workbench: zone clock and rotation budget | Route, stops and effective speed |
| What can this call deliver? | Care Packages: airdrops, flares and supply calls | Call type, availability and position |
| Which item helps? | Item reference: healing, boosts and equipment | Inventory and a use window |
| Why does an older guide disagree? | Mechanics updates: what changed, and when | Date, platform and mode |
| Is this a measured claim? | Evidence notebook: facts, calculations and open questions | Source type and assumptions |
A chain of checks for one decision
For a supply detour identify the call, check route and phase, then review what your inventory lacks. Finally compare the detour with leaving for the next covered position. A loot table alone cannot decide whether a trip is useful.
Name missing inputs. “I do not know whether the crossing is clear” is more useful than a precise number built on an imaginary route. A teammate can then supply the observation you lack.
After the match trace the first assumption that failed. If travel took longer, revise the route model. If a rule was outdated, check the patch. If combat changed the plan, record that event rather than rewriting a correct source value.
Build a decision tree instead of collecting more facts
Start with the outcome you can still choose. If the choice is whether to take a supply detour, collecting another paragraph about crate contents is useful only if it could change that choice. First establish whether the trip is feasible, then whether its possible benefit matters to your inventory. This ordering avoids spending attention on a reward that you cannot reasonably reach and leave.
Use four branches: feasible route, available action window, relevant benefit and acceptable fallback. A “no” on one branch does not automatically mean never take a crate; it identifies what must change before this particular plan is supported. A route blocked by another squad needs new observation, not a different loot table. An absent action window needs a changed plan, not a more optimistic label.
The important output is sometimes a question rather than a decision. “Can somebody check the east crossing while I estimate travel?” assigns a missing-input task. The decision map separates a fact lookup from reconnaissance so that an unknown live condition does not disappear inside a confident calculation. No article can fill that branch without the current observation.
Change one assumption and see what survives
Consider a hypothetical plan with 120 seconds on the HUD, a 420-metre route at an assumed 6 m/s, 20 seconds of stops and a chosen 20-second reserve. The total is 110 seconds and the margin is 10. If an extra 60 metres is required, travel becomes 80 seconds and the margin becomes zero. If instead a stop grows by 15 seconds, the original plan is already five seconds over budget.
This sensitivity check tells you that the original ten-second margin is fragile under those inputs. It does not tell you the probability of either interruption. Treating an unknown event as impossible because it lacks a measured probability would make the model less honest, not more precise. You can keep uncertainty explicit by choosing another route, departing earlier or declining the optional action.
Keep the comparison symmetric. Do not give one route a generous reserve and remove every stop from another just to make a preferred option win. Write the reason when assumptions differ: perhaps a teammate is already at one vehicle, or one route requires a climb. The useful conclusion then describes the actual difference instead of disguising a preference as arithmetic.
A reusable decision card
Record five fields in a note: decision, observed inputs, source-dependent rule, assumption and abort condition. For example: “Leave before another search; HUD 90; phase chart used only for context; travel estimated 65 plus stops; abandon the crossing if contested.” The note can be brief. Its purpose is to expose where evidence ends and your plan begins.
Afterwards mark which field changed first. A wrong rule calls for a source correction. A wrong distance calls for better route estimation. A lost crossing calls for a different fallback. This makes the decision map a method you can use again, rather than an index that merely sends you through another set of links.