Actually it just looks like something useful for internal reference.
The
Guide says they are “the Midway’s mission log numbers”, so they clearly have an administrative purpose.
I think that any scheme proposed, at least as regards Prophecy, will have to account for the “interruptions” in the numerical progression, specifically the H’hrass demo missions and the Hellespont and Alcor missions. (And I don’t think we can get around the latter by positing they don’t occur, since while that could be true, their not occurring doesn’t undercut the apparent fact that if they occur, they will indeed have the log numbers shown for them.)
So how does this scheme fare . . .
. . . where A is the mission series . . .
Why then are the Hellespont and Alcor series both designated “0”, and in addition fall in between series 3 and 4? One explanation might be to distinguish between the “this-is-when-we-are-retreating” and “this-is-when-we-are-advancing” missions.
. . . BC is the order of mission play, and X is the version of the mission.
Of course these numbers constitute the progression we see. But the progression itself is not quite real, because we know that not all possible missions occur. For example, depending on what happens during G’wriss “C1” (206.7), we end up flying “C2a” (207.0), “C2b” (208.5), or “C2c” (209.4), but only one, thus leaving “gaps”. How to account for this? Maybe one explanation is that the Midway systematically “projects” the range of missions it could be facing or would want to carry out, and accordingly assigns log numbers in each case, producing a progression that is not designed to be consistently realized in fact. And in this regard, as suggested, “.X” would further allow for a lot of variation.
The foregoing might also be able to account for the H’hrass demo numbers where they were somehow a “too late” projection compared to those for T’lan Meth, or the latter for some reason a “too early” projection. Alternatively, perhaps these missions are part and parcel and/or occur at roughly the same time in the two systems, but I don’t know if the information in the demo supports/contradicts this interpretation. (For example, is Casey supposed to be flying in the demo missions too?)
As for the Hellespont and Alcor series, their “BC” numbers certainly seem “wrong”, designated as the very last missions when instead (if they occur) they come in the middle. One explanation might be that they are intentionally designated “last” so as to segregate them from the “winning” missions (as in the case of “A” and specifically “0"). However, it doesn’t seem they can be contrived in this way, because we know all the log numbers are generated concurrently, if not beforehand–we can always display the specs and log number for the given mission we’re in the process of flying.
On the other hand, if those “0[BC]” numbers are then just a coincidence, what do they really mean? One possible answer is that they are still genuine “BC” (order of mission) numbers–if the Midway is projecting “winning” progressions it may (should) be projecting “losing” ones too, and each type simply has its own “BC” order.
Lastly, as to the ABC.X scheme overall, why don’t SO’s numbers (not to mention letters) “fit”? Maybe one explanation is that the Prophecy numbers are a “simple” case, where there is a clear-cut strategy being pursued, namely confrontation and/or containment, whereas SO represents a much more complicated situation requiring projections that comprise both offensive and defensive aims (and maybe also have to be coordinated with other ships), and accordingly other variables in the numbering protocol or “mission algorithm” are implicated (sometimes producing progressions within progressions?).
