Conflict Early Warning Systems Explorer₂₀₀₀

Table of Contents
 

	Introduction The Argument Conflict as a Social Organism Evolutionary Possibilities of a Conflict Simulating Conflict Trajectories Prerequisites Installation/De-installation
	Conventions Loading the program Checklist
	Main Menu
Database Default database Phase sequence comparison Switch on mode of comparison Change mode of comparison Switch off mode of comparison Define mode of comparison Case list Define case list Manipulate database View conflict scenario Close graphics window Delete scenario	Simulation Generate a new scenario Definition of modes of comparison Definition of single or multiple perspectives Generate phase sequences Beginning of phase sequences Possible next phases Terminating phase sequences Saving a conflict scenario Printing a conflict scenario Continue an existing conflict scenario	Program modification Modify rules View all rules View specific rule Add rule Delete rule Modify rule Optimization Restore default rules Modify  phase types View phase types Add phase type Delete phase type Modify phase type Log-File Restore default phase types
	Help Index

Introduction

The CEWS Explorer  is a prototype of an electronic information system that aims at providing a common standard to collect, analyze and exchange conflict data to a community of scholars and practitioners who study and work towards the prevention, abatement, mediation, and resolution of violent conflicts. It does not aim at substituting existing information systems including databases and modes of analysis. On the contrary, it aims at integrating them so that the knowledge entailed in diverse but incompatible and incomplete information systems be cumulated and made accessible to a wide audience. The guiding principle of the CEWS Explorer is that it is to be continuously updated, modified and used by a network of scholars and practitioners who are committed to create a less violent world. For this reason the CEWS Explorer has been developed with three strategies in mind:

1) The strategy of integration aims at developing an analytical method that is used to make a diverse set of conflict data - ranging from systematically collected and quantified event data to individual reports of participants - comparable. Once this data can be compared, it can be analyzed, lessons can be learned, and the otherwise incompatible or lost knowledge can be cumulated. The analytical method is presented in:

The analytical method was developed in such a way that no extensive theoretical or methodological skills are needed to apply it. This is crucial to assure that a wide variety of persons can easily and quickly participate in the integration effort.

2) The strategy of simulation aims at providing practitioners and scholars with an analytical tool that helps them to make prognoses about the possible future trajectories of a conflict, and to learn from past actual and counterfactual conflict trajectories. Some of their principal activities is to explore what is or is not possible in a particular situation, and to assess whether or not a particular situation can be brought about or avoided. A simulation is therefore a valuable tool to learn from the past, to assess the future, and to stimulate creative decision making.

The simulation was developed in such a way that it can be easily modified to correspond to new empirical findings or to meet particular analytical needs.

3) The strategy of communication aims at building an institutional and an informational network. The more institutions participate in the development and application of the CEWS Explorer the more they will form a community that can coordinate additional activities through the same or other channels which will help to prevent, abate or resolve violent conflicts more effectively or more quickly. To form an institutional network that spans the entire globe a technology must be used that is widely available, affordable, and provides instant connectivity. Such a technology exists in the form of the internet. However, the purpose cannot be to distribute the CEWS Explorer over the internet where individuals can further develop and use it individually. The purpose must rather be to install the CEWS Explorer on the internet so that it can be further developed and used collectively. This goal has not been achieved yet. However, this prototype is designed to demonstrate the viability of an effective information system for the collection, analysis and exchange of conflict data. Whether or not this prototype will grow into an informational network will depend on how you, the user, will adopt it.

The Argument

A few introductory explanations will facilitate the use of the CEWS Explorer. They will briefly reproduce the argument of how conflict can be represented in order to introduce the data format used by the program. The argument proceeds in three steps:

1) Conflict is regarded as a social organism that can take on four forms.
2) To capture the growth and decay of these forms as well as the transition from one form to another, the evolutionary process, including its combinatorial possibilities, can be represented in terms of conflict phases.
3) A systematic comparison of cases, coded in terms of conflict phases, yields a further specification in terms of conflict phase types and their empirically grounded combinatorial possibilities. Phase types are descriptions of typical conflict situations, and they can be combined in particular sequential orders to form actual and counterfactual conflict trajectories. Each trajectory reads like a story about the evolution of a conflict, including the opportunities seized and missed to diminish further violence, from which lessons can be learned to seize opportunities more often, more timely, and more effectively.

Conflict as a Social Organism

At the basis of the CEWS Explorer stands an analytical framework that conceives of conflicts as social organisms that come into being, mature, intersect with others, and are affected by and embedded within others, flourish, decay and die. The life cycle of a conflict can be distinguished into four forms of conflict: They are dispute, crisis, limited violence and massive violence.

Dispute:
A dispute stands at the beginning of a conflict. It is characterized by opposing claims that are expressed in ways that use existing institutional processes. This alone does not distinguish a dispute from other disagreements and define any political process. The distinguishing characteristic is rather the expectation of a crisis, that is, the existing institutions for accommodating divergent claims and interests are threatened or expected to be disabled or sidestepped. No violence connected to the dispute does occur.

Crisis:
The opposition underlying a crisis is expressed in ways that use the existing institutional processes, but their substitution with violence is openly threatened or expected. Contrary to a dispute in which not the use, but the threat of using violence is expected, a crisis is characterized by the expectation of a regular and systematic use of violence. In fact, incidental and sporadic violence can already occur and give further reason to believe that the way in which the underlying opposition is expressed might soon involve the regular and systematic use of violence.

Limited Violence:
The regular and systematic use of violence implies that the underlying opposition is no longer expressed within the existing institutional processes to peacefully accommodate diverging claims. In fact, the legitimacy or usefulness of these processes is called into question, and the systematic and regular use of force is considered justified and permissible. However, even if the regular and systematic use of force is justified, not all uses of force are equally justified. For instance, a government might engage in selective military actions against a group of rebels without unduly implicating the civilian population in that region, or unduly interfering with the everyday activities of the rest of the population. We can therefore distinguish a form of conflict that is characterized by a restrained use of force from another form of conflict that is characterized by the unrestrained use of force. We call the former a form of limited violence and the latter a form of massive violence. They usually, but not necessarily, coincide with lower and higher numbers of casualties. The defining characteristic of a form of  limited violence is that an unrestrained use of force, and thus a form of massive violence, can be expected.

Massive Violence:
Massive violence is characterized by the regular, systematic, and unrestrained use of force. Institutional processes for peacefully accommodating diverging claims are disabled or avoided, and the opposition underlying the conflict is expressed in using the full range of violent means available. For instance, a government might feel compelled, and could thus justify, that its military actions do not discriminate between the group of rebels against which the actions are directed from the civilian population among which the rebels operate. Notice that our definition of an underlying opposition is sufficiently broad to not only include conflictual behavior that involves the mutual use of violence but also the exclusive use of violence by one group against another. If such violence is used in an unrestrained manner not only war but also genocide and politicide can be characterized in this manner. The unrestrained use of force gives rise to the expectation of destruction or elimination of a party.

Evolutionary Possibilities of a Conflict

A differentiation of conflict into different forms of conflict allows us to categorize a great many instances of conflictual behavior into distinct and measurable manifestations of conflict. Each form of conflict is in turn a conflict qua social organism that is characterized by a life cycle, i.e. it comes into and out of being. We can therefore distinguish the escalatory from the de-escalatory development of a conflict in two related ways. First, we distinguish each form of conflict into an escalatory phase and a corresponding abatement phase. This permits us to represent the waxing and waning development of conflicts. Second, we consider all conflict phases to be embedded within a larger conflictual relationship. This relationship provides the contextual coherence within which the various conflict phases succeed each other. It is terminated only if the embedded conflicts have been abated. A settlement can then occur and put an end to the entire conflictual composite. This can be represented in the following way:

Conflict	Forms of Conflict	Conflict Phases
	Dispute	Dispute Dispute Phase - Opposition is expressed within institutional processes - No violence occurs - Expectation of crisis	Abatement Phase - Opposition persists - No violence occurs - Expectation of crisis is suspended
	Crisis	Crisis Crisis Phase - Opposition is expressed within institutional processes - Incidental or sporadic violence can occur - Expectation of violence	Abatement Phase - Opposition persists - No violence occurs - Expectation of violence is suspended
	Limited Violence	Limited Violence Phase - Opposition is expressed by the use of force - Regular, systematic, and restrained use of force - Expectation of massive violence	Abatement Phase - Opposition persists - Systematic violence is suspended although sporadic violence can still occur - Expectation of massive violence is suspended
	Massive Violence	Massive Violence Phase - Opposition is expressed by the use of force - Regular, systematic, and unrestrained use of force - Expectation of destruction or elimination	Abatement Phase - Opposition persists - Systematic violence is suspended although sporadic violence can still occur - Expectation of  destruction or elimination is suspended
				Settlement Phase - Opposition is dissolved - No violence occurs - No threat of violence is expected

Based on the definitions of conflict phases we can now determine the logical possibilities by which they can be combined into phase sequences. These combinatorial possibilities are analytically possible because they are derived from the expectations of each conflict phase, i.e. one of the defining features of a conflict phase. The logical possibilities for phase sequences can be graphically represented in the following way:

The parties to a conflict do not necessarily have to - and often do not - agree on the interpretation of the situation they are in. A party that dominates the conflict often tends to interpret its actions as less violent or violating than the party suffering from these actions. To take such differences in interpretation into account the divergent perspectives can be represented as phase sequences that fork off, unfold parallel to each other, and converge.

This is only one reason for why the basic format for representing conflicts is a graphical one. Additional advantages of a graphical representation are:

• diverse data formats, including quantitative and qualitative data, can be represented in one common form. It therefore addresses in a creative way the requirements set out in the strategy of integration;
• the overall structure of a conflict, including its trajectory, embedded conflicts, and historical transformations, can be easily and intuitively conveyed;
• a consistently applied graphic format facilitates subsequent comparisons and analyses due to its semi-formalized structure. One way of comparing and analyzing trajectory graphs aims at identifying typical situation descriptions and their combinatorial possibilities, and thus provides the basis for the strategy of simulation;
• formatted as HTML graphics they can be annotated and hyperlinked to other resources in order to encourage and facilitate the exchange of information about specific elements in the graph, including contesting views, experiences, and recommendations. It therefore addresses an important element set out in the strategy of communication.

Simulation of Conflict Trajectories

To simulate historically relevant conflict trajectories the logical possibilities by which conflict sequences are composed must be rendered context-sensitive. This can be achieved through a systematic comparison of conflict scenarios that have been coded in terms of conflict phases. Such a comparison yields a further specification of conflict phases that is empirically grounded. These specifications are called phase types because they typify their respective conflict phase and represent typical situation descriptions. Whether or not a specified conflict phase can follow another one is then no longer a matter of a priori but empirical consistency.

Conflict phases and their respective types represent the basic building blocks for the CEWS Explorer. Although the CEWS Explorer is provided with default settings that are empirically grounded, they can be customized according to new empirical findings or for analytical purposes. More concretely, the basic data structure is a six phase conflict phase model consisting of dispute, crisis, limited violence, massive violence, abatement, and settlement phases. This structure cannot be modified. However, the phase types that are grounded in a systematic empirical analysis can be redefined. Since this affects the combinatorial possibilities that are formalized in the simulation they can and will have to be redefined as well. Consequently, a different simulation results every time the underlying rules for phase transitions are being defined. This addresses the requirements set out in the strategy of simulation.

The default settings of the CEWS Explorer are derived from the empirical findings of the CEWS project. This means that the six conflict phases are specified in the following way:
 
 

Conflict Phase	Conflict Phase Type	Description
Phase 1 (Dispute Phase)	1a: Separation from opponent	The expectation of a crisis arises from discussions or claims for autonomy or independence. This situation differs from 2c in that the discussions or claims are made with a view to resolving disagreements within the existing political system.
	1b: Reform	The expectation of a crisis arises from discussions, claims, and efforts to reform the existing political, social, or economic system.
	1c: Disagreement	The expectation of a crisis arises from a disagreement over the interpretation of a previously concluded agreement.
Phase 2 (Crisis Phase)	2a: Formation or support of armed groups	The expectation of systematic violence arises from the formation of armed groups or the receipt of economic, military, or political assistance by existing armed groups.
	2b: Suppression of opponent	The expectation of systematic violence arises from the suppression, confinement, or elimination of members of the other party.
	2c: Separation from opponent	The expectation of systematic violence arises from the declaration that one party separates itself unilaterally from a common social or political order. This includes declarations of autonomy or independence.
Phase 3 (Limited Violence Phase)	3a: Overt repression	A conflict party employs open but limited force against a group without encountering any noticeable violent response.
	3b: Overt attacks	A conflict party engages in the systematic use of force against an armed opponent.
Phase 4 (Massive Violence Phase)	4a: Massacres	A conflict party employs massive force against a group without encountering any noticeable violent response.
	4b: War	A conflict party engages in the massive use of force against another warring party.
Phase 5 (Abatement Phase)	5a: Defeat of a party	A violent conflict is temporarily abated by the military defeat of an opponent.
	5b: Regime change	A conflict is temporarily abated by the installation of a new government.
	5c: Negotiation	A conflict is temporarily abated when the protagonists engage in attempts to stop further violence or to resolve the conflict.
	5d: Concession	A conflict is temporarily abated when one of the protagonists changes his policy towards the other and can be understood as making a concession.
	5e: Change in Legitimacy	A conflict is temporarily abated when one of the protagonists acquires or looses the legitimacy that had justified his previous actions.

Prerequisites

The CEWS Explorer is written in the programming language Scheme and requires the interpreter of MIT Scheme for Windows to be operated. A slim version of MIT Scheme_{(7.3.0 beta)} is provided together with the CEWS Explorer under the GNU license agreement. Minimum system requirements are an x386 processor, 16 MB RAM and 2 MB free disk space.

Installation/De-Installation

The CEWS Explorer is provided as a self-executable compressed file named "CEWS.exe". To install the program double-click on the file. A dialog box appears. Press "Unzip".

NOTE: The file must be uncompressed in no other place but c:\.

A directory C:/Scheme will be created into which both, the MIT Scheme interpreter and the CEWS Explorer will be copied. An icon to launch the CEWS Explorer will be placed on the desktop.

Known problems with icon creation.
 

To run the CEWS Explorer click on the icon on the desktop.

To uninstall the CEWS Explorer delete the directory C:\Scheme including the sub-directories and files it contains. Also delete the icon for the CEWS Explorer on the desktop.

Conventions

To properly operate the CEWS Explorer a few conventions must be observed.

1.) If the program prompts for an input, and:

a) no format is specified, type a single word or number and press "return", e.g. 1 or tibet. Entries are case-insensitive.
b) multiple entries are permitted to be entered as a list, type the respective words in parentheses and press "return", e.g. (tibet zaire). Multiple entries are optional. For single entries see the previous item.
c) entries must be made as a string, type the respective word or words in quotation marks and press "return", e.g. "This phase describes". Entries entered as a string are case-sensitive.

3.) Should an error occur and interrupt the program, type (menu) at the prompt and press "return".

4.) The font and background color of the program screen can be modified by pointing the mouse on the menu bar and clicking on the right mouse button. It is recommended to select font Terminal, size 9.

Loading the Program

The CEWS Explorer is loaded by clicking on the icon on the desktop. The interpreter of MIT Scheme is loaded first. It appears in its default settings and may have to be configured for better viewing. For this reason a graphics window is opened with information about modifying the display and the most important conventions about operating the program.

IMPORTANT!!! Do not close the graphics windows by clicking on the menu bar. This would cause an error. Rather activate the program window by clicking on it. A message on the screen reads:

Type y. The graphics window will be closed and the CEWS Explorer will be loaded. Loading the CEWS Explorer for the first time will take a little longer because the default database is being generated.

To operate the CEWS Explorer most effectively three standardized steps must be taken:

1.) Load the CEWS Explorer.
2.) Define a mode of comparison.
3.) Define a case list.

Main Menu

The CEWS Explorer consists of three modules that can be accessed from the main menu. They are: Database, simulation, and program modification.
 
 

Database

The database is the first of the three modules of the CEWS Explorer. It interacts with the second module, the simulation, in two ways. First, the simulation can be used to add or modify conflict scenarios to the database. Second, the phase sequences being generated by the simulation can be compared to those stored in the database. This requires two independent preparatory steps: First, a mode of comparison must be defined, i.e. the degree of contextual detail must be determined that is used to identify identical aspects of phase sequences. Second, a case list must be defined, i.e. those scenarios must be selected to which comparisons are to be made.

The CEWS Explorer is provided with a default database consisting of 19 scenarios. Additional scenarios can be added, and existing scenarios can be modified or deleted. All scenarios of the database can be viewed in their graphic representation.
 

Default database

The default database consists of 19 historical conflict scenarios: Burundi, Chechnya, Chiapas, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hungary, Kosovo, Macedonia, Mizos, Moros, Mozambique, Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tibet, and Zaire. For additional information about these scenarios see the official web site of the CEWS project.

The default database is generated when the CEWS Explorer is loaded for the first time. During this process a sub-directory C:\Scheme\cews is being created. If a scenario from the default database is accidentally deleted it can be recovered by restoring the default database. To restore the default database delete the sub-directory C:\Scheme\cews and re-load the CEWS Explorer. This will re-create the sub-directory C:/Scheme/cews and generate the 19 scenarios of the default database.

Phase sequence comparisons

A comparison of conflict phase sequences may provide valuable information about more general conflict patterns or it may provide relevant analogies and historical precedents for particular conflict situations. The CEWS Explorer is set up in such a way that those phases sequences that are currently generated with the simulation module can be compared to a specifically defined set of scenarios from the database module (case list). Phase sequence comparisons can be made in four different modes, i.e. with four degrees of contextual detail.

The following settings for phase sequence comparisons are possible:
    - Switch on and define mode of comparison. (The default setting of phase sequence comparisons is in the off mode.)
    - Change the mode of comparison.
    - Switch off mode of comparison.

Switch on mode of comparison

A mode of comparison can be switched on at three locations in the program:

a) From the main menu by first typing mode and then pressing "return".
    A menu with modes of comparison appears.

b) Before starting the generation of a new conflict scenario, or
c) before starting the continuation of an existing conflict scenario.
    If no mode of comparison is selected a message appears:

    (No mode of comparison has been selected.)
     (A mode of comparison is needed to detect similarities with other cases.)
     (Do you want to select a mode of comparison now: y/n)

    If n is selected the generation of a conflict scenario will proceed without any comparisons to other cases being made.

    If y is selected a menu with modes of comparison appears.

Change mode of comparison

A mode of comparison can be changed from the main menu by first typing mode and then pressing "return". A menu appears that displays the current settings:
 

Type mode again and a menu with modes of comparison appears.

Switch off mode of comparison

Phase sequence comparisons can be switched off from the main menu by first typing mode, and then pressing "return". A menu appears that displays the current settings:
 
 

Type off and press "return". The program returns to the main menu.

Define modes of comparison

To activate phase sequence comparisons a mode of comparison must be defined. Four modes of comparison exist which describe four degrees of contextual detail:
 

Note: If a mode of comparison is selected, it will, by default, be applied to all cases in the database. To define a subset of all cases a case list must be defined.

Compare transitions of phases searches for similar but not exact matches of phase pairs in those scenarios that have been included in the case list. This mode of comparison is the coarsest one because it matches phase pairs irrespective of their type specification. E.g. The phase pairs 1a-2a or 2a-3b are matched to all phase pairs of the form 1-2 or 2-3 respectively. This mode of comparison is useful for identifying the largest number of minimally similar phase transitions.

Compare transitions of phase types searches for exact matches of phase pairs in those scenarios that have been included in the case list. E.g. 1a-2a or 2a-3b are matched exactly to 1a-2a or 2a-3b respectively. This mode of comparison is useful for identifying similar contexts in which particular phase transitions can occur.

Compare episodes in terms of phases searches for conflict episodes that consist of similar but not exact matches of phase sequences in those scenarios that have been included in the case list. E.g. 1a-2a-5a is matched to all episodes of the form 1-2-5 irrespective of their type specification. This mode of comparison is useful for identifying the largest number of minimally similar conflict episodes.

Compare episodes in terms of phase types searches for episodes that consist of exact matches of phase sequences in those scenarios that have been included in the case list. E.g. 1a-2a-3b-5c is matched exactly to all episodes of the form 1a-2a-3b-5c. This mode of comparison is the most fine-grained one and is useful for identifying similar historical contexts in which particular phase trajectories can occur.

Case list

To activate phase sequence comparisons a list of scenarios must be defined to which the phase sequences are contrasted that are being generated by the simulation module. This list is called case list and must be defined. By default all scenarios of the database are included in the case list. However, for specific purposes it may be useful to select only a subset of all available scenarios, e.g. by geographical region or type of conflict. To define the case list, enter case and press "return" at the main menu. The database menu appears:
 

Define Case list

The default setting of the case list includes all scenarios of the database. To define the case list for specific purposes various options exist:

To empty all scenarios in the case list type emp and press "return". This option is useful for instances in which only a few scenarios are to be included in the case list. Note: Without a case list no comparisons can be made.

To include all scenarios from the database in the case list type all and press "return". This option is useful for instances in which only a few scenarios are to be removed from the case list.

To include specific scenarios in the case list type inc, press "return" and then enter the respective scenarios from the database. For a single scenario type the name as it appears in the database and press "return", e.g. tibet. For multiple scenarios type the names as they appear in the database as a list and press "return", e.g. (tibet zaire).

To exclude specific scenarios from the case list type exc, press "return" and then enter the respective scenarios from the case list. For a single scenario type the name as it appears in the database and press "return", e.g. tibet. For multiple scenarios type the names as they appear in the database as a list and press "return", e.g. (tibet zaire).

Note: The definition of a case list alone does not activate any comparisons. A mode of comparison must also be defined.
 

Manipulate Database

Conflict scenarios are generated in terms of phase sequences that can be represented graphically. The generation and manipulation of phase sequences is made with the simulation module and are stored as conflict scenarios in the database module. The database module provides three options to manipulate the scenarios stored in the database. First, a case list can be defined for the comparison of phase sequences. Second, the graphic representation of scenarios can be viewed. Third, scenarios can be deleted from the database.

View conflict scenario

To view a specific scenario from the database type case at the main menu, press "return", type view, press "return", then type the name of the scenario as it appears in the database,  e.g. chechnya, and press "return". A graphics windows opens that represents the phase sequence and possible alternatives.

The graphic representation of a conflict scenario is to be read as follows:
 

Representational conventions:

• If a conflict scenario is characterized by divergent perspectives, the dominant actor's interpretation is represented in blue, the dominated actor's interpretation in red, and the convergence of perspectives in black. Together they represent the actual conflict trajectory; irrespective of whether they refer to factually or counterfactually realized possibilities.
• Possible phases that were not realized are represented in green at each instance at which they could have occurred.
• A conflict phase trajectory is structured in terms of conflict episodes which can be understood as separate conflicts that are embedded in a larger conflict. Conflict episodes are numbered in chronological order.

Close graphics window

Graphics window must be closed only from within the program. Two options exist to close graphics windows:

First, immediately after a graphics window has been opened a message appears that reads:
 

If y is entered, the graphics window is closed. If n is selected, the graphic window remains opened, and will have to be closed later with the second option. Exception: Upon loading the CEWS Explorer an information window is opened that must be closed by typing y for the loading of the program to proceed.

Second, a "close window" option exists in the database module. To enter the database go to the main menu, type case, and press "return". To close graphics windows type close and press "return". Graphics windows can be closed individually, collectively, or in groups. The following message appears:
 

To close a single graphics window, type its corresponding number and press "return", e.g. 1.
To close multiple graphics windows, type their corresponding numbers as a list and press "return", e.g. (1 3).
To close all graphics windows, type 0 and press "return".

Delete scenario

To permanently remove a scenario from the database enter the database module, i.e. go to the main menu, type case, and press "return". To delete a scenario from the database type del, type the name of the scenario as it appears in the database, and press "return". Confirm the deletion. Scenarios that are part of the default database can be restored after deletion. All other scenarios are permanently removed from the database, and cannot be recovered.

Simulation

The simulation is the second of the three modules of the CEWS Explorer. It is used to generate new conflict scenarios, continue existing conflict scenarios, and to save them as additional conflict scenarios in the database. During the generation of a conflict scenario comparisons can be made to scenarios stored in the database. Comparisons may provide insights about more general patterns of particular aspects of phase sequences such as their frequency, geographical distribution or historical context, or they may provide analogies or historical precedents to particular cases. To activate phase sequence comparisons a mode of comparison must be selected and a case list must be defined to which comparisons are to be made.

A conflict scenario is said to be generated because its component parts - conflict phases and phase types - are assembled into phase sequences by a set of rules. More concretely, the input in terms of phases (numbers) and phase types (letters) are applied to a set of rules that compute an output - a range of possible next phases - from which one is selected as the next input. Together, they form a phase sequence which represents a conflict scenario. Notice though that letters and numbers are a shorthand for situation descriptions. A sequence of the form 1b-2a-5b is therefore to be read as:
 

The rules governing the generation of phase sequences are empirically grounded. However, they can be modified in light of new empirical findings or for analytical purposes. To change the rules of the simulation the third module of the CEWS Explorer, the program modification, must be used.

New conflict scenarios are generated to explore a conflict case that is not stored in the database or to add a new conflict case to the database. Before a new scenario can be generated two features must be defined.
1) Mode of comparison.
2) Single or multiple perspectives.

These definitions determine how the generation of phase sequences will proceed.

Define modes of comparison
If the purpose of generating a scenario is to explore conflict trajectories it is useful to activate comparisons to cases stored in the database. To activate comparisons a mode of comparison and a case list must be defined first. If no mode of comparison is selected a message appears before a new scenario is generated that reads:
 

If y is selected a menu appears to assist in the definition of a mode of comparison. Subsequently, single or multiple perspectives must be defined before the generation of phase sequences can be started.

If n is selected, the program prompts for the definition of single or multiple perspectives. The subsequent generation of phase sequences will proceed without any comparisons to existing cases. However, the same message will appear again the next time a new scenario is started or an existing scenario is continued.

Define single or multiple perspectives
A conflict can be characterized by convergent or divergent perspectives. A convergent perspective is one in which the conflicting parties have similar interpretations about their situation. E.g. they agree that they find themselves in a crisis situation. Divergent perspectives, on the other hand, are characterized by different interpretations that the conflicting parties have about their situation. E.g. one party may consider itself in a crisis situation while the other considers itself in a situation where violence is used  systematically. For this reason a message appears that reads:
 

If n is selected, the program will proceed to the generation of phase sequences.

If y is selected the program is instructed to enable divergent phase and phase type selections. This means that instead of a single conflict trajectory two parallel conflict trajectories will be generated within the limits defined by the program.

By convention, the dominant party's perspective is defined first and will later be displayed graphically in the top row of an episode. Therefore, a message appears that reads:
 

Enter any name that refers to the party in question and press "return".
Note: A name consists of eight letters. Longer entries will be automatically shortened. Use only letters!!!

The dominated party's perspective is defined next, and will later be displayed graphically in the bottom row of an episode. Hence, another message appears that reads:
 

Enter again any name that refers to the party in question and press "return". The program proceeds to the generation of phase sequences.

Generate Phase Sequences

The generation of phase sequences can be distinguished into a beginning, a continuation, and an ending.
 

• The beginning of a phase sequence requires the entry of a phase pair, that is, two consecutive phases must be entered in order to generate a range of possible next phases.
• All subsequent next phases will be generated from the phase (e.g. 2) and its respective phase type (e.g. a) that have been entered last and a new phase (e.g. 3) that is to be selected from a range of options (e.g. 2, 3, 4). Depending on whether or not multiple perspectives have been enabled, selections have to be entered either once or twice.
• A phase sequence is terminated automatically, if no next phases or phase types can be generated, or the conflict has been settled. It can be terminated optionally by entering the command exit when prompted.

Beginning of a Phase Sequence
The beginning of a phase sequence is characterized by the selection of a phase pair instead of only a single next phase or phase type. If multiple perspectives have not been enabled, a menu appears that reads:
 

If multiple perspectives have been enabled, a menu appears that specifies the respective perspective and reads:
 

Any of the options can be selected as a first phase in the conflict scenario. For instance, enter 1 and press "return". All possible types for this phase will be computed and returned as another option.
 

Select one of the phase types. For instance, enter a and press "return". The option menu for the second phase will be generated next.
 

Select again one of the possible phases. For instance, enter 2 and press "return". Again, all possible types for this phase will be computed and returned as another option.
 

Select one of the phase types. For instance, enter a and press "return". If multiple perspectives have been enabled, the same steps will be repeated for the dominated party's perspective. If multiple perspectives have not been enabled, or if the dominated party's first phase pair has already been defined, the generation of phase sequences will proceed on the basis of possible next phases.
 

Possible Next Phases
Possible next phases are generated after the beginning of a new scenario or when an existing scenario is being continued. The generation of next possible phases proceeds in two steps: the selection of the next possible phase and the selection of its corresponding phase type. Consequently, a first option menu reads:
 

If a next phase is selected (e.g. 1) its possible corresponding phase types are generated.
Note: Do not confuse the selection number with the phase number.
 

After a phase type has been selected another range of possible next phases is being generated to continue either the convergent perspective of a conflict trajectory or the divergent perspective by the respective other party to the conflict.

The current phase sequence displays the history of the current conflict in terms of phases and their respective phase types. It also displays the options that existed at each node. For instance, 2a=1 indicates that instead of a crisis phase (2) that is characterized by the formation or support of armed groups (a) a dispute phase (1) would have been an alternative. The current phase sequence refers only to the respective perspective, i.e. if multiple perspectives have been enabled, the history of the conflict is being told only from the perspective which is currently being developed.

Terminating Phase Sequences
A phase sequence is terminated automatically if no next phase or corresponding phase type can be generated, or the conflict has been settled with the selection of a settlement phase (Phase 6). A graphics window opens and graphically displays the generated conflict scenario which can be closed immediately or later. Subsequently, the conflict scenario can be saved.

A phase sequence can be terminated manually before a new phase is selected. If multiple perspectives have been enabled, this is the case before the dominant party's next possible phase is to be defined. It cannot be terminated before the dominated party's next possible phase is selected, because a corresponding interpretation to the previously defined dominating party's next possible phase is needed. If multiple perspectives have not been enabled, a scenario can be terminated each time before a possible next phase is to be selected.

To manually terminate a phase sequence, enter exit instead of a number and press "return". A graphics window opens and graphically displays the generated conflict scenario which can be closed immediately or later. Subsequently, the conflict scenario can be saved.

Saving a Conflict Scenario
A conflict scenario can be saved after the generation of a phase sequence has been terminated. A message appears that reads:
 

If n is selected, the phase sequence is discarded and the program returns to the main menu.

If y is selected, a message appears that reads:
 

A name consists of no more than eight letters which are entered as a string (e.g. testcase). Longer names will automatically be reduced to the eight letters. The scenario will be added to the database. Subsequently, the program returns to the main menu.
 

Printing a Conflict Scenario
Unfortunately, no print option is provided by the CEWS Explorer. To print a scenario use any word processing program and load the respective scenario from the directory that contains the database, i.e. C:\scheme\cews\. A print-out of the respective scenario consists of the raw phase sequences and its graphic representation.
 

Continue an Existing Conflict Scenario

Any of the scenarios stored in the database can be continued at any node in their phase sequence. This is especially useful for updating a case or for generating a range of counterfactual scenarios that revolve around a particular what-if question or hypothesis.

The generation of phase sequences which continues an existing scenario proceeds in a similar manner to the one which develops a new scenario. To continue an existing scenario type cont and press "return" at the main menu. The content of the database is displayed.
 

A name of a scenario must be entered at the prompt which results in the display of its phase sequence.
 

The first two phases cannot be selected because they are required for the generation of possible next phases. However, any of the numbered phases can be selected. Phase numbers demarcate the point in the phase sequence from where the simulation will be continued.

Similar to the generation of a new scenario, the continuation of an existing scenario begins with the definition of single or multiple perspectives and the definition of phase sequence comparisons.

If the loaded scenario is characterized by a single perspective, a message appears:
 

This option allows one to continue a scenario with divergent perspectives, although it had been developed originally with a convergent perspective. Scenarios that have originally been characterized by divergent perspectives are automatically continued with divergent perspectives.

If no mode of comparison has been defined, it can be selected at this point.

Subsequently, possible next phases are at the basis of further scenario development, which can be terminated manually or automatically. A graphics window opens and graphically displays the generated conflict scenario which can be closed immediately or later. Subsequently, the conflict scenario can be saved and printed.

Program Modification

Program modification is the third module of the CEWS Explorer and affects primarily the second module, the simulation. The simulation is based upon a set of empirically grounded rules that determine possible next phases and their possibly corresponding phase types. These rules are preliminary and may have to be altered in light of new empirical findings or for specific analytical purposes. The importance of empirically grounded rules is that counterfactual scenarios are not only logically but also empirically consistent with the rules of actual scenarios. Hence, the validity of counterfactual scenarios - and thus the basis upon which they can be contested - rests on the empirical consistency of rules across all actually observed cases. A different kind of simulation results from altering the empirically grounded rules for purely analytical purposes. Whereas empirically grounded rules generate counterfactual scenarios in which the what-if question is "what would have happened if this as opposed to another phase or phase type had characterized a conflict", the alteration of these rules renders the what-if question into "what would have happened if the rule for this kind of phase transition had not been this but that".

The modification of the program is divided into two parts: one dealing with the syntactic component of phase sequences, the other with the semantic component of phase types. This division is reflected in the modification menu. To access this menu type modify and press "return".
 

Modify Rules
The modification of rules refers to the syntax of phase sequences, i.e. the rules that determine which combination of phases and phase types can possibly follow a particular combination of other phases and phase types. To modify these rules means that a new universe/grammar is created in which conflict trajectories unfold differently. Such a new universe/grammar may be created because new empirical findings show that a re-definition of rules captures better the conflict trajectories that can be observed empirically. A new universe/grammar may also be created for analytical purposes that aim at exploring how a universe/grammar would have to look like in order to produce or avoid certain conflict trajectories. The modification of rules does not affect the semantics of phase sequences, i.e. the phase types which are the situation descriptions to which the rules are applied. To alter the semantics of phase sequences the definition of phase types must be modified.

A modification of rules usually proceeds in three steps. First, all rules or specific rules are viewed in order to make informed modifications to the program. Subsequently, new rules can be added or existing rules can be deleted or modified. These changes are likely to affect the optimal abstraction of individual rules into general procedures. For this reason the CEWS Explorer is equipped with an optimization program which checks the set of rules for sub-optimal procedures, and which can automatically optimize them. Each time such an optimization is performed a report is generated, saved and can be viewed.

Whereas rules refer to phase transitions, meta rules refer to exceptions that apply when phase sequences from divergent perspectives are to be generated. Meta rules define the limits within which divergent perspectives can differ. A separate menu exists for meta rules.

Finally, the default rules of the CEWS Explorer can be restored so that at least one - although tentatively - empirically grounded set of rules can be resorted to.

View All Rules
To view all rules type v-rule and press "return" at the modification menu. All existing rules will be displayed in the following form:
 

The format of rules is x xt - y yt => z so that the above rule no. 1 is to be interpreted as: 2a-5a=>1.

View Specific Rule
To view a specific rule type rule and press "return" at the modification menu. The program prompts:
 

Type a valid rule number and press "return", e.g. 1. The respective rule will be displayed with a range of options.
 

The format of rules is x xt - y yt => z so that the above rule no. 1 is to be interpreted as: 2a-5a=>1.

Add Rule
To add a new rule type a-rule and press "return" at the modification menu. A menu appears:
 

To define a phase x type a single number or a list of numbers corresponding to the appropriate phase description(s) and press "return", e.g. 1 or (1 2 3).

Note: A list of numbers presumes a systematic abstraction of individual rules. For instance, the individual rules 1a-2a=>4 and 1a-3a=>4 can be abstracted to 1a-(2 3)a=>4.

Depending on the definition of phase x another menu appears:
 

To define a phase type enter a single letter or a list of letters corresponding to the appropriate phase type description(s) and press "return", e.g. a or (a b).

Note: A list of letters presumes a systematic abstraction of individual rules. For instance, the individual rules 1a-2a=3 and 1a-2b=>3 can be abstracted to 1a-2(a b)=>3.

Depending on the definition of phase x a limited number of possible phases y exist logically. They are displayed in another menu:
 

To select a phase y type the number corresponding to the appropriate phase description. Multiple entries are not permitted because the principle of rule development is to determine which phase pair x xt - y yt makes for a transition to z.

Depending on the definition of phase y another menu appears:
 

To define a phase type of y enter a letter corresponding to the appropriate phase type description. For the same reason that phases y are not permitted to have multiple definitions, their corresponding phase types are also not permitted to have multiple definitions.

Depending on the phase sequence x xt - y yt only a limited number of next phases is logically possible. These options are displayed in another menu:
 

To define a possible next phase type the number corresponding to the appropriate phase description and press "return".

After the successful addition of a new rule, another rule can be added. If no more rules are added the optimization program sets in.

Delete Rule
To delete an existing rule type d-rule and press "return" at the modification menu. Enter the rule number to be deleted and press "return". Confirm the deletion of the respective rule by typing y and pressing "return".

Note: The deletion of a rule results in the re-numbering of the entire set of rules to assure that all rules are numbered in consecutive order without any gaps. Hence, only the rule but not the number associated with a rule is deleted.

Modify Rule
The modification of a rule implies that the same structure is used and merely new values are exchanged. In most cases this means that individual rules have already been abstracted into more general rules and their respective structure. It is recommended to modify rules only if the abstraction is not affected. It is generally safer to add a new rule and have it automatically abstracted by the optimization program.

To modify a specific rule type m-rule and press "return". Enter the rule number to be modified and press "return" at the modification menu. A sequence of menus appear that display the current definition of phases and phase types, and prompt for the entry of new definitions. For instance:
 

The new phase x must be a number between 1 and 5 corresponding to the phase numbers that designate phase descriptions, i.e. dispute, crisis, limited violence, and massive violence phases. Single entries are entered as strings, multiple entries as a list, e.g. 1 or (1 2).

Similar procedures are to be applied for the phase type(s) of x, phase y, phase type of y and next phase. After the successful modification of a rule, another rule can be modified. If no more rules are modified, the optimization program sets in.
 

Modify Meta Rules
Divergent perspectives are characterized by different conflict phase trajectories. However, these differences can occur only within certain limits. These limits are set by meta rules which are empirically grounded rules that override the generation of possible next phases or phase types, and determine a convergence of perspectives on a particular next phase and phase type. Meta rules can be modified by typing meta at the modification menu and pressing "return". A new menu appears:
 

Similar to the modification of rules, the modification of meta rules usually proceeds in three steps. In the first step, the existing meta rules are viewed to make informed decisions about exactly what is to be modified. In the second step, the modification is effected by adding a new or modifying or deleting an existing meta rule. Finally, the optimization program sets in and makes the necessary changes to assure the proper operation of the program.

View Meta Rules
To view meta rules type view at the meta rule menu and press "return". A message appears that reports on the existing meta rules. For instance:
 

This message indicates that three meta rules are defined, each one determining a necessary convergence of perspectives. For, instance, meta rule no 3. implies that if one party enters an abatement phase (5) that is characterized by the defeat of one of the conflicting parties (a), the other party will necessarily enter also a situation 5a regardless of what other next possible phases or phase types may be generated instead.

Note: Accessible meta rules are numbered as odd numbers starting from 3. Meta rule nos. 1 and 2 cannot be accessed, for they are used to assure proper interactions with the rest of the program. Properly speaking, a meta rule consists of two rules, one that defines the necessary convergence of phases and another one that defines the necessary convergence of phase types. For instance, meta rule no. 3 determines a necessary convergence of phases and meta rule no. 4 determines the corresponding convergence of phase types. However, meta rule no. 4 cannot be accessed independently.

Add Meta Rule
To add a meta rule type add and press "return" at the meta rule menu. A menu appears displaying a range of phases from which one can be selected.
 

To exit the modification of meta rules type e and press "enter". To add a new meta rule type the number corresponding to the appropriate phase and press "return". Another menu appears displaying a range of phase types from which one can be selected.
 

Type the letter corresponding to the appropriate phase type and press "return". This completes the definition of a new meta rule, i.e. whenever a party enters a situation that matches the one defined by a meta rule (e.g. 2a), the other party's perspective converges to this perspective. The optimization program sets in and completes the integration of meta rules into the program.
 

Modify Meta Rule
To modify an existing meta rule type mod and press "return" at the meta rule menu. A message prompts for the number of the meta rule to be modified. The numbers of existing meta rules are displayed when viewed. To exit the modification type e and press "return". To proceed with the modification, type the number of the meta rule to be modified and press "return". The same procedures are to be followed as when a meta rule is added.

Delete Meta Rule
To delete a meta rule type del and press "return" at the meta rule menu. A message prompts for the number of the meta rule to be deleted. The numbers of existing meta rules are displayed when viewed. To exit the modification, type e and press "return". To proceed with the modification confirm the deletion of the meta rule by typing y and pressing "return". The optimization program sets in and completes the integration of meta rules into the program.

Default Rules
The modification of rules or meta rules changes the basis upon which conflict trajectories are generated. This may be the desired result for updating or improving the correspondence between empirically observed and computationally generated conflict trajectories. However, if the set of rules has been changed for experimental purposes, or if a rule has been modified accidentally or incorrectly, a default can be resorted to. This default is based on the analysis of the CEWS project which consisted of the cases entailed in the CEWS database. To replace the current set of rules with the default set of rules, type default-r and press "return" at the modification menu.

In principle, any set of rules can be defined as the default set of rules. To do this one has to use a file manager, such as the Windows Explorer, and access the directory C:\Scheme\bin. This directory contains a file named rules.scm and a file named rules.bak. The former is the current set of rules, the latter the default set of rules. To render the current also into the default set of rules delete the file rules.bak, copy rules.scm into the same directory, and rename the latter to rules.bak.

Note: The cases contained in the default database have been generated with the default set of rules provided with the CEWS Explorer. Any changes made to these rules may also affect the re-production of these scenarios.

Modify Phase Types
The modification of phase types refers to the semantics of phase sequences, i.e. phase types are situation descriptions which are combined into phase sequences through a set of rules. Situation descriptions are empirically grounded categories that correspond to the essential characteristics of specific situations. In other words, a phase type is a valid category only if all instances of a particular phase can be divided into categories so that each instance can be assigned completely and unambiguously to one of these categories. These categories can be labeled and paraphrased. For instance, one type of a crisis phase can be labeled:

FORMATION OR SUPPORT OF ARMED GROUPS

The expectation of systematic violence arises from the formation of armed groups or the receipt of economic, military, or political assistance by existing armed groups.

Modifying phase types is equivalent to re-defining the words and concepts in a lexicon. Consequently, a new universe/grammar is created in which conflict trajectories unfold differently, not because the rules by which phase types are combined have been changed, but because the phase types themselves have been changed. Such a new universe/grammar may be created primarily because new empirical findings show that a re-definition of phase types captures better the conflict trajectories that can be observed empirically. The modification of phase types does not affect the syntax of phase sequences, i.e. the rules that are applied to combine phases and phase types into phase sequences. To alter the syntax of phase sequences the definition of rules must be modified.

A modification of rules usually proceeds in three steps. First, all phase types are viewed in order to make informed modifications to the program. Subsequently, new phase types can be added or existing phase types can be deleted or modified. These changes affect the program to varying degrees. The rules which will be affected by the modification will be identified, displayed and saved as a log-file.

It is crucial to remember that a modification of phase types affects all scenarios that have been generated with a different definition of phase types. Although a phase type may still be referred to in the same way, e.g. 2a, it no longer describes the same situation. Consequently, the scenarios contained in the database are likely to be rendered meaningless by a modification of phase types. Similarly, the rules that make operations on phase types will have to be re-defined in order to generate phase sequences that are meaningful, and correspond to empirically observed conflict trajectories.

Finally, the default phase types of the CEWS Explorer can be restored so that at least one - although tentatively - empirically grounded set of rules can be resorted to.

View Phase Types
To view all currently defined phase types enter v-type and press "return" at the modification menu. All phases and their corresponding phase types are displayed.

Add Phase Types
Adding phase types is useful for adding new phase type definitions to a consecutive alphabetical order of existing phase type definitions, e.g. a, b, c. If one of the existing definitions is to be deleted and a new one is added, it is recommended to rather modify phase types.

To add a new phase type enter a-type and press "return" at the modification menu. A message appears that prompts for the number of the phase that is to be divided into a new type. Enter a phase number between 1 and 6 corresponding to dispute, crisis, limited violence, massive violence, abatement and settlement phase, and press "return" .

Another message appears that prompts for the label of the new phase type. Notice that the letter with which the new phase type will be referred to is automatically generated by the program. For instance, if phase 1 (dispute phase) is divided into three types that are referred to as a, b, and c, the new type will automatically be referred to as d. The same applies if one or several types have been previously deleted. Up to 26 phase types can be defined. i.e. a...z. Type the label for the new type as a string and press "return", e.g. "Claims for independence". The label will later appear in upper cases.

Another message appears that prompts for the description or paraphrase of the new type. Enter a description as a string and press "return", e.g. "A group of parliamentary representatives voice claims for independence in public sessions.". Note that the description is case sensitive.

A last message appears informing the user that new phase types will only affect the program if also the rules are modified that are applied to phase types.

Note: The validity of phase types must be ensured through a systematic comparative analysis of all phase sequences in all available cases. Whether or not labels or paraphrases of new phase types overlap with, or are identical or contradictory to other phase types cannot be determined by the program.

Delete Phase Types
To delete a phase type enter d-type and press "return" at the modification menu. A message prompts for the number of the phase that corresponds to the phase type to be deleted. Type the number and press "return".

Another message appears that displays the phase types that are associated with the selected phase. Type the letter corresponding to the situation description (phase type) to be deleted, and press "return".

The definition of the phase type has now been removed from the source code of the program but is still active in the currently running program. Hence, a last message appears that consists of five parts:

First, a notice is displayed stating that the changes will only take effect if the CEWS Explorer is exited and re-loaded.

Second, a notice is displayed stating that a log-file will be created that lists all the rules which will have to be changed in order to assure the proper operation of the program.

Third, the content of the log-file is displayed.

Fourth, a notice is displayed reminding the user to make the appropriate changes to the rules, or to restore the default definition of phase types.

Fifth, an option to exit the CEWS Explorer is offered. To exit the program type e and press "return". Upon loading the CEWS Explorer again, a message will remind the user that a log has been saved.

Note: Contrary to the deletion of a rule which is followed by the automatic re-numbering of all remaining rules, the deletion of a phase type is not followed by an automatic re-definition of the letters designating situation descriptions.

Modify Phase Types
The modification of phase types is an alternative to first adding a new phase type and then deleting an existing one. An additional advantage is that no additional letter has to be used to refer to the new type. This may become important if many phase types have been deleted or many phase types have been newly defined. The limit of slots for phase types is 26.

To modify an existing phase type enter m-type and press "return" at the modification menu. A message appears that prompts for the number of the phase that is to be modified. Type the appropriate phase number and press "return".

Another message appears that prompts for a new the label of the type. Enter the label for the new type as a string and press "return", e.g. "Claims for independence". The label will later appear in upper cases.

Another message appears that prompts for the description or paraphrase of the new type. Enter a description as a string and press "return", e.g. "A group of parliamentary representatives voice claims for independence in public sessions.". Note that a string is case sensitive.

A last message appears informing the user of the rules that will be affected by the changes. This list of rules will also be saved as a log-file.

Note: The validity of phase types must be ensured through a systematic comparative analysis of all phase sequences in all available cases. Whether or not labels or paraphrases of new phase types overlap with, or are identical or contradictory to other phase types cannot be determined by the program.

If a log-file exists, it can be viewed by typing log and pressing "return" at the modification menu.

If a log-file exists upon loading the CEWS Explorer a message appears that offers the option of deleting or keeping the log-file.

Default Phase Types
The modification of phase types changes the basis upon which conflict trajectories are generated. This may be the desired result for updating or improving the correspondence between empirically observed and computationally generated conflict trajectories. However, if the definition of phase types has been modified accidentally or incorrectly, a default can be resorted to. This default is based on the analysis of the CEWS project which consisted of the cases entailed in the CEWS database. To replace the current definitions of phase types with the default definitions, type default-t and press "return" at the modification menu.

In principle, any set of phase type definitions can be made the default. To do this one has to use a file manager, such as the Windows Explorer, and access the directory C:\Scheme\bin. This directory contains a file named types.scm and a file named types.bak. The former is the current set of definitions, the latter the default definitions. To render the current also into the default definitions delete the file types.bak, copy types.scm into the same directory, and rename the latter to types.bak.

Note: The cases contained in the default database have been generated with the default phase type definitions provided with the CEWS Explorer. Any changes made to these definitions will also affect the re-production of these scenarios, most likely rendering them incompatible.

Optimization
The CEWS Explorer is equipped with an optimization program which assures that changes made to the rule set, such as adding, modifying or deleting rules will be abstracted to the highest level in order to guarantee the proper operation of the program. Every time changes to the rule set have been made the optimization program sets in and generates a report. This report is first displayed in the following way:
 

This message informs that the newly entered rule no.31, i.e. 1b-2a=>3, can be merged with the existing rule no. 9, i.e. 1b, 5(b c e)-2a=>3.

Another message appears that reads:
 

A set of rules which is not optimized is likely to generate ranges of possible next phases that include several of the same phases. This may also result in malfunctions. For this reason it is strongly recommended to automatically optimize the set of rules.

If y is selected, the optimization program performs the necessary changes and no optimization report is saved.

If n is selected, the optimization report is saved without any other changes made to the set of rules. The set of rules can be automatically optimized later at two instances. First, when the CEWS Explorer is loaded again, and an optimization report is found to exist, the user is reminded of the problem and offered the option to launch the optimization. Second, the automatic optimization can be launched any time from the modification menu by typing report and pressing "return".

Help
A rudimentary help function can be accessed from the program by typing help and pressing "return" at the main menu. For more in depth information consult this manual.

Exit
The CEWS Explorer is integrated into a slim version of MIT Scheme. Hence, to exit the CEWS Explorer requires to also exit MIT Scheme. This can be done from two locations. From the main menu type exit, press "return", and confirm by pressing y. If changes to the phase types have been made the program may have to be re-loaded in order for the changes to take effect. A message appears that prompts to type y and press "return".

Index