"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."
rubbish. gross over simplification!
I am talking about before the engagement. Very simple example. If you are going to use a distraction device to disrupt his observe and orientation, you assume that your adversary will be distracted by said device. If he uses them as part of his arsenal as well, chances are he will not be distracted as he understands, on observing the device being employed, that it is a distraction. He looks away and at the same time moves. See what I mean?