All people that are working within the strategy execution such as architects will always struggle with the intent of the strategy or the intent of the person who represents the strategy. If the strategy is backed by a group it may even be that the intent is contradictory in some or all points.
No group has done so badly with the strategy execution as the military. There are countless disasters to prove it and the range spans from a simple miscommunication to the absolute opposite of the commander’s intent. This is why the military has created a lot of thinking around the commander’s intent. The newest of this is the Battle Management Language that is especially important for the communication between different units that are not used to operate together.
When I as an architect am asked the best way to capture requirements I often search for “Battle Management Language Examples”, as the majority of the samples prove to give a good view on intent as well as all the environmental factors. If you invest 20 minutes yourself you will quickly see that most of the information is not limited to a military situation, but includes valuable way ascertain any given requirement with potential assumptions attached. Additional you will also find a lot of schemas that capture requirements in an object related style and where the military can actually teach most architects, business analysts and project managers a great deal of structure, as long as someone actually finds the information as on the other hand I cannot think of an area that has a worse way in filing their open documents as each URL will have a very short lifespan (so if you find some good stuff copy it!).