As part of the Fritzes Best Interfaces award for 2026, I am reviewing the interfaces in Star Trek: Section 31. This post is about the mission briefer.

When HQ needs a team to get moving, they send a mission briefer. (n.b. Ths is my term. They don’t mention it by name in the movie.) This little faceted matte-black pod is the size of an orange with one flat side. Rest it on a surface, and when an authorized person long-touches the top, it spins open like a lotus flower. A lens rises up and emits a holographic video projection above it with mission information. The projection has a highly pixelated translucent appearance. The movie begins with the decontextualized briefing for the pre-Georgiou team, and ends with the final team standing around a table in Baraam, receiving a briefing for a mission that will take them to Turkana IV. (!)

One excellent design aspect is that there’s no indication from the outside what it is or how to use it. Ordinarily of course we designers work hard to make sure use is clear to the novice user, but in this case obscurity is security. No rando off the street should be able to figure out how to open the top secret clearance container. This aspect might be even better if it looked and functioned like some other mundane object, so that said rando wouldn’t even suspect it was worth investigating. But that introduces other risks and complications, and for an object that is not quite plot-critical, would require too much screen time to explain.

Otherwise I have some minor questions about the device. Each of these can be dismissed as “well, it’s really high tech, you see”. Sophisticated tech is a plausible explanation, but that’s the unsatisfying “a wizard did it” answer that doesn’t help us with design lessons.

Shouldn’t it have strong multifactor authentication?

I suspect all briefings contain highly-sensitive information. And sure, we can give it the benefit of the doubt that mere contact provides a biometric signature “something she is.” We should see some indication that she provides one of the other two: Something she knows like a password or something she has like a combadge. (I’m not a security expert, but I believe holding the briefer itself might count as “something she has” but it’s a prohibitively weak authentication factor since it’s coupled to the content.)

Isn’t orientation a problem?

This one’s tiny, but how does the projection get oriented (yaw in this case, since pitch and roll are handled by the surface)? Sahar seems to fuss about its placement on the table, but the device looks the same from all angles, so I’m not sure that what he was doing was orientation. In the end scene, the projection is just of a person talking, so the orientation is not critical. It might be awkward for a projected person to be facing directly away from the listener, but not significantly hinder the information. But in the opening sequence, there is text and maps and lots of 2D information, which would be made significantly difficult to interpret if it was backwards or off-facing.

Of course, it could have built-in tech that finds where the team is around it, and calculates the optimal display yaw. If we had half a second after the long-touch of tiny glowing bits around the base that demonstrated it finding them and thereby the optimal orientation, it would telegraph this feature. (See above.)

Is everyone supposed to be able to see it?

As you can see in the wide-angle shot, the team is just watching the brief with the briefing agent in the nightclub of Baraam. It draws attention. Can’t anyone just glance that way, record it, and sell the information to the highest bidder in the underworld network? That can’t be secure. If it was just projecting into the team’s eyes, ears, or brains, that might be secure, but the film would need to change that wide-angle shot to indicate that. Projection beams or something. Somehow it should signal how this isn’t just broadcast for any eavesdropper to pick up.

What if the team has questions?

I’ve never seen this in a mission briefing in present-day spy thrillers, but there’s an opportunity here since we’re dealing with very advanced technology. If the briefer has a knowledge base, then the team should be able to ask questions of it. Clarifications or additional detail. If it was driven by something like a large language model, rather than a recording, then it could be interactive, and there could be a question and answer session at the end, and serve as a just-in-time reference during the mission, too. (c.f. related concepts in the real-time interplanetary chat post.)

Again, these are nit picks, as it hits the narrative beat just fine. It’s a prerecorded message that plays and tells them what they need to know. (And Jamie Lee Curtis!) Anything else would be gravy.

Next up: Phase pods

Next up: Phase pods (currently scheduled for 29 May 2026)