A return simulation was suspended this week after operators detected drift between the subject’s expected reintegration profile and the timing envelope the protocol had predicted.
The exercise was designed to test staged return under supervision, not to push exposure limits. That made the deviation more revealing. When ordinary reintegration models fail inside a controlled drill, the problem is usually not raw courage or equipment quality. It is a mismatch between the model and the actual variability of return.
Isolation protocol was triggered as designed, and the subject was cleared later the same day. The interesting question now is whether the drift came from the subject, the supervisory stack, or the assumptions built into the return profile itself. That ambiguity is precisely why reintegration remains more contested than travel.