How well can a language model turn a large, incomplete and partly contradictory body of documents into a plan when no single correct answer exists?
We introduce Mission Analysis (MA)-Bench, built on mission analysis, the first step of military operational planning, in which a staff reads the full situation and states the problem before anyone proposes a solution.
Its 10 expert-built scenarios pair synthetic packets of ten to twelve documents with 1,257 expert-written pass/fail requirements, each containing information on their source, question type, and importance level.
A reasoning-model judge grades each brief against the requirements without seeing the documents; it grades like a fifth credentialed planner, leaving a four-planner panel's agreement unchanged (Fleiss $κ$ 0.42 to 0.41), and a judge from a second provider reproduces the model ranking (Spearman 0.94).
Across twenty frontier and open-weights models the best gets 62% of the rubric items right.
Models are strongest on facts stated in the documents (58%) and weakest on judgments that must be inferred (33%), and six failures in ten are omissions rather than errors.
MA-Bench grades the determinations, not the prose.
We release the packets, rubrics, prompts, scorer and every graded brief with item-level verdicts.