<![CDATA[This study aims to methodologically analyze the limitations of conventional doc trine testing approaches and compare them with contemporary complex systems-based approaches, using doctrinal axioms and system resilience as the basis for evaluation. Operational doctrine is traditionally tested through conventional approaches that emphasize normative compliance, historical precedent, and limited scenario-based simulations. This approach is based on the assumption of strategic and operational environmental stability and the linearity of cause-and-effect relationships. However, the dynamics of contemporary strategic and operational environments which are non-linear, adaptive, and produce emergent effects demonstrate a methodological gap between the reality of the system encountered and the doctrine testing mechanisms employed. The study uses a conceptual qualitative approach through a systemic-doctrinal analysis with a comparative method of epistemic assumptions, testing logic, and validity criteria of both approaches. The analysis shows that the conventional approach is prone to pseudo-validity because it assesses doctrine primarily based on procedural compliance, rather than systemic resilience to environmental change and operational disruption. In contrast, the contemporary approach offers a more structurally consistent evaluation framework in addressing the complexity of the strategic and operational environment. Therefore, doctrine testing needs to be reoriented from a normative verification model to a complex systems-based evaluation model as a structural methodological necessity. This research contributes to the development of a doctrine evaluation methodology that is more relevant to the study of contemporary defense doctrine and strategy.]]>
