your 8 power points from a military standpoint. If I fooled around with, and changed, some terminology, they generally would apply to trial work.

One metaphor ...

3. There is no AOR. There is no control. One is merely riding a wave. If you are really good, then you may influence. If not, then you simply get in the way.
I can discuss - again with reference to its context in my little world.

In a litigated case (for simplicity, we'll have two clients and two lawyers, a judge and a jury panel), you have a number of key factors:

1. Facts (witnesses & exhibits)

2. Law

3. Judge

4. Jury

5. Clients

6. Lawyers

Interestingly enough, all of these factors are objectively fixed - at least within the context of the trial. Some may be subjectively unknown or uncertain (e.g., the perceptions of the jury and judge). Some may conflict (the clients and lawyers certainly do - otherwise there would be no trial).

Those factors make up my wave - and one I have to ride (unless I reject the case).

Does the skill of the lawyer make any difference ? Back in the day, the American Jury (1966) was studied by every trial lawyer with any brains. That was a large project with many sub-branches. One experiment was to match average lawyers and top-notch trial specialists.

The lawyers were given a set of facts (including witnesses, exhibits), a given set of laws (the jury instructions), the judge (unknown to the lawyers), and the jury (also unknown to the lawyers). They then made closing arguments to the jury. The top-notch pros won only about 5% more of the same cases than the average lawyers.

This result is somewhat along the lines of your:

If you are really good, then you may influence. If not, then you simply get in the way.
and should have influenced JMM to do some other things in life - since what real difference would JMM make. Know many lawyers who took that course.

But, that wasn't me. So, what was missing in the experiment ? The missing element is the lawyer's skill in shaping the case - which might be considered by some to be controlling the case. Actually, it's not that; but it is gaining as complete knowledge as you can of the factors that make up the wave you will ride into that courtroom.

In short, learn all the facts that are favorable, unfavorable and that can be developed. Same for the law. Learn everything you can about the opposing client and lawyer, the judge and jury array (the 50-100 folks from whom the 6- or 12-person jury will be selected). Also, the same for your client and yourself (critique your successes more than your defeats - errors in the latter will be obvious). In short, explore the wave horizontally and vertically - and from all angles. And, expect to spend by orders of magnitude more time in preparation vs time spent in the courtroom.

By the time you've done all that, the AO (in your jargon) is well-defined to you - not by artificial lines drawn by theory, but by knowledge of the actual environment in which you have to perform. The paradox is that while you have no control of the wave, you have a very good idea of which way it will break. When during the trial the wave began breaking in that direction, I felt in control - knowledge is king.

So, the result was that, in 20 years of trial work, I lost very few cases. But, more important, to some of my clients, I was able to settle cases on favorable terms to my clients where I knew things unfavorable to my cases, but where the other lawyers failed to discover those same things. My usual pleasant and charming personality vis a vis opposing lawyers may also have been a factor.

Too long by half - maybe useful, maybe not.