Try to pick a natural break point, rather than just dividing into two
"Your example depicts about 15 years of service. I think that is likely about the maximum length of a single timeline for readability in a tank. To account for 30+ YOCS, could the timeline be “continued” as a second timeline below the top timeline, i.e., “stacked” so as to display on a single monitor/projectors screen (in a tank.) Perhaps utilizing a triggering “event” to break/wrap the timeline (other than a set number of years or a set paygrade change) might be preferred – like 13.5 to 16.5 YOCS that corresponds with a change in billet or change in reporting senior. The latter wrap point would be beneficial when connecting stars, diamonds, etc. In the case of over 30 YOCS, I think we could just delete O1 service, then O2 service, then start whittling away at O3 assignments from the visualization. An officer’s performance while an O1, O2, O3 has (arguably) little bearing on whether a senior O6 or O7 selects to O7 or O8, respectively. Plus, the PSR table entries are still there. As an aside, I bet any PSR entries prior to ~1996 likely cannot be supported anyway. I think that’s the year when the current the PSR version came into play."
Try to pick a natural break point, rather than just dividing into two
"Your example depicts about 15 years of service. I think that is likely about the maximum length of a single timeline for readability in a tank. To account for 30+ YOCS, could the timeline be “continued” as a second timeline below the top timeline, i.e., “stacked” so as to display on a single monitor/projectors screen (in a tank.) Perhaps utilizing a triggering “event” to break/wrap the timeline (other than a set number of years or a set paygrade change) might be preferred – like 13.5 to 16.5 YOCS that corresponds with a change in billet or change in reporting senior. The latter wrap point would be beneficial when connecting stars, diamonds, etc. In the case of over 30 YOCS, I think we could just delete O1 service, then O2 service, then start whittling away at O3 assignments from the visualization. An officer’s performance while an O1, O2, O3 has (arguably) little bearing on whether a senior O6 or O7 selects to O7 or O8, respectively. Plus, the PSR table entries are still there. As an aside, I bet any PSR entries prior to ~1996 likely cannot be supported anyway. I think that’s the year when the current the PSR version came into play."