You should compare and contrast three existing disaster after-action reviews.

You may select whichever AARs appeal to you, but one must be Canadian,
one must be American, and one must be from elsewhere (i.e., not Canada or the US).

Your task is to compare the format and content of each AAR. For each (format and content), you should (a) describe each AAR, (b) discuss comparative advantages of each approach, and (c) discuss comparative disadvantages of each approach. What do we learn from these about how strong AARs should be written?

Must have clarity, precision, and incisiveness of your arguments. Imagine
this as giving advice to a professional in the field about AARs, as if they had called you in for a presentation presenting best practices what can we learn, descriptively and normatively?