3.1 Animated Scenarios and Independent Ratings

Official structure

Section 2 presents 15 animated scenarios showing situations a Uniformed Division Officer might encounter. After each video, the candidate evaluates several possible actions. Across the section there are 82 action ratings in 34 minutes. The candidate assumes the role of the officer and treats the people in the scenario as speaking directly to them.

This is not a single-best-answer test. Every displayed action receives a score on the same seven-point scale:

1. Very Ineffective
2. Moderately Ineffective
3. Slightly Ineffective
4. Neutral
5. Slightly Effective
6. Moderately Effective
7. Very Effective

The official preparation guide supplies four rules that control the task:

• A scenario may be replayed more than once before evaluating its actions.
• Treat each proposed action as though it is the first and only action the officer takes.
• Evaluate each action entirely on its own merits.
• The same rating may be used for multiple actions; do not rank the actions and do not force one action to receive 1 or another to receive 7.

Why independence changes the answer

Suppose a scenario offers these actions: explain a restriction, tell the person where the activity may continue, and ask a supervisor to speak with the person. All three may contribute positively when imagined separately. You do not lower the first action merely because the second seems even better. Conversely, two responses may both escalate a conflict and both deserve low ratings.

The phrase first and only action also blocks combination reasoning. Do not rescue an incomplete action by imagining that a better action occurs next. If the displayed response merely acknowledges a problem but never addresses it, evaluate that limited response as written. Do not punish a sound response because another option would normally follow; ask what this action accomplishes on its own.

A four-question rating screen

For each action, ask:

1. Does it address the actual problem? An answer focused on tone may miss a security or staffing concern; a rigid rule statement may miss an interpersonal problem.
2. Does it make the situation better, worse, or largely unchanged? This places the response on the effective, ineffective, or neutral side of the scale.
3. How complete is the benefit or harm? A partial improvement fits nearer 5; a strong, direct improvement fits nearer 6 or 7. A mild shortcoming fits nearer 3; an actively counterproductive response fits nearer 1 or 2.
4. Am I using only the scenario and published example logic? Do not invent undisclosed post orders, arrest authority, equipment, or emergency codes.

This framework is deliberately general. The official guide does not publish a mathematical scoring formula or a list of universal field protocols. Any preparation source that assigns exact hidden point deductions is speculating.

Replay with purpose

The official directions allow replay before evaluation. A replay is useful when you missed:

• Who has authority in the conversation.
• The exact request or complaint.
• A timing or staffing fact.
• Whether the location has become restricted.
• Details likely to matter in the following Memory Skills section.

Replay to resolve a concrete gap, not automatically. The same 34-minute limit covers all scenarios and ratings. A deliberate second view can improve both judgment and memory, while repeated viewing without a question consumes time needed to read 82 actions.

Pace by scenario, not only by rating

Thirty-four minutes divided by 15 scenarios is about 2 minutes 16 seconds for an entire video-and-rating group. The 82 ratings average about 25 seconds each only if video time is ignored, so that figure is not a literal allowance. Practice the whole unit: watch, identify the central problem, replay if needed, then rate each action independently.

Do not assume an unpublished video length or an interface feature such as flagging. The official materials guarantee replay before evaluation and define the rating task; they do not promise a particular clip duration or review tool. Build a strategy around documented functions.

Final discipline

Before submitting a rating, restate the proposed action in plain language and mentally erase the other options. If the score changes only because a neighboring response looks better or worse, comparative ranking has taken over. Return to the action's independent effect. The most important SJT skill is not memorizing a slogan; it is repeatedly applying the official directions exactly.