[JGarcia]

TR-
Can you elaborate as to how you see the deception plans as a landmine? I imagine that you are saying the time and effrots expended to conduct deception operations could be problematic.

Suppose deception were part of your SOP, budgeting your time and resources devoted to deception. I suppose though, that it all boils down to fingerspitzengefuhl, so that deception becomes natural, and the amount used is a quantity that the commander intuitively knows is sufficient. He develops a FEEL for it.

On bad assumptions. I think what you are speaking about is a generalization of a badly conducted analysis/synthesis process in the 'ORIENT' phase. The danger is that one will make bad assumptions with reference to the relationship between himself and his foe. Which is precisely what you want your adversary to do, if I am correct. I dont think I understand this area of his theory very well yet. But bear with me, I am trying to wrap my mind around this. Still have to think about this and read on it some more. But I think I am headed in the right direction.

NDD-
I want to say that I dont think boyd intended for you to concern yourself with the idea of imposing your orientation on your (imagined) view of the adversary's. I think he intended that you conduct your own unique 'ORIENT' phase, generate a hypothesis ('DECIDE') and test it 'ACT'.
Wouldnt this cause you to be the actor and not the reactor, making you the one setting the pace, not your adversary, and forcing him to keep pace with you. The inherant risk is always there.