## 5 Verification and Application
### Application on Capability Demand Satisfaction Evaluation of SCS  
To demonstrate the effectiveness of a practical SCS capability evaluation, a specific information assurance mission is considered. This evaluation aims to assess the SCS's ability to meet the requirements of the mission task. The SCS consists of the walker constellation, with a total of 24 satellites, 4 orbital planes, and 6 satellites per orbital plane. The objective of this operation is to safeguard maritime and land-based communications, which can be further divided into three tasks: command communications, reconnaissance intelligence transmission, and daily communications tasks. These activities involve issuing command orders, transmitting and receiving positioning information and weather updates, facilitating daily communications, and providing broadcasting services. By analyzing each activity individually, a list of SCS capability demands under the information assurance mission is compiled, along with corresponding capability indicators. These indicators include ground coverage, orbital coverage, time coverage, inter-satellite link connectivity, signal-to-noise ratio, bit error ratio, link interruption rate, packet loss ratio, bandwidth, time delay, transmission rate, throughput capacity, denoted as \(I_{1}\) to \(I_{12}\). The evaluation considers three concentrations within the FoD:  
\[V=\{v_{1},v_{2},v_{3}\}, \tag{50}\]  
where \(v_{1},v_{2},v_{3}\) represent the satisfaction levels of high, medium, and low, and the boundaries of \(v_{1},v_{2}\), and \(v_{2}\) are not precisely defined. Assume that there are two potential schemes for constructing the SCS to fulfill the mission. The demand indicator values of different satisfaction levels have been provided by experts, and the indicator values of different schemes are collected from simulation. The values of the demand indicators for maritime communication are 0.9, 0.8, 0.8, 0.75, 0.7, 0.95, 0.95, 0.8, 0.9,1.1, 0.9, 0.9 times higher than that for land, respectively. In order to integrate the different indicator values, the raw data need to be standardized and converted into normalized data with a range of \([0,1]\). The demand indicators of the land communication assurance mission and the indicators of two schemes are given in Table 3.  
The importance of two parts of the mission under 12 indicators is shown in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Indicators**} & **Demand** & **Demand** & **Demand** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Scheme 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Scheme 2**} \\  & **Value of \(v_{1}\)** & **Value of \(v_{2}\)** & **Value of \(v_{3}\)** & & \\ \hline \(I_{1}\) & 0.9679 & 0.7364 & 0.6312 & 1 & 0.9772 \\ \(I_{2}\) & 0.8878 & 0.6658 & 0.4439 & 0.9903 & 1 \\ \(I_{3}\) & 1 & 0.9 & 0.7 & 0.9772 & 0.9897 \\ \(I_{4}\) & 1 & 0.5 & 0.2 & 0.7789 & 0.8355 \\ \(I_{5}\) & 0.9672 & 0.9188 & 0.8705 & 0.9636 & 1 \\ \(I_{6}\) & 0.7921 & 0.9307 & 1 & 0.8267 & 0.8239 \\ \(I_{7}\) & 0.1667 & 0.6667 & 1 & 0.3553 & 0.6927 \\ \(I_{8}\) & 0.3333 & 0.5 & 1 & 0.4517 & 0.8553 \\ \(I_{9}\) & 1 & 0.9333 & 0.8333 & 0.9719 & 0.9718 \\ \(I_{10}\) & 0.8 & 0.8571 & 1 & 0.8083 & 0.8040 \\ \(I_{11}\) & 1 & 0.8947 & 0.7895 & 0.9704 & 0.9742 \\ \(I_{12}\) & 1 & 0.5 & 0.3125 & 0.9375 & 0.5000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Values of capability indicators. According to the distance-based generation method, the data of 12 indicators are modeled as PHFBPAs, which consist of the importance and the degree of affiliations of demand of two parts of the mission. The detailed PHFBPAs of scheme 1 are shown in Table 5.  
As depicted in Table 5, an inconsistency arises between \(m_{PS}\) and other evidence since \(m_{PS}\) assigns more belief mass to satisfaction level \(v_{2}\) compared to \(v_{1}\), which is supported by other evidence. To ensure a comprehensive synthesis, it is crucial to merge the various pieces of data. Relying solely on a single piece of evidence would be unreliable for making informed decisions.