I am not sure how the new model eliminates the "dead zone".
As an example, let's say Infantry fills 50% of its allocation with the top 20% of the OML, and another 15% using ADSO up to about 28% of the OML. Now that 65% of the Infantry allocation has taken place, the remaining 35% MUST come from the bottom 50% of the OML. Therefore, the "Dead Zone" belongs to a cadet at the 29% of the OML up to the 49% of the OML, where Infantry is not a possibility.
Have they eliminated the Dead Zone? I'm not clear from reading the article.
It is true that a cadet might be tempted, using past year models who understands he/she is at about the 35% or 40% of the OML, to tank their MSIII year, including LDAC, just enough to reach, say the 55%, and be able then to get Infantry out of the "bottom half" of the OML. Without purposely dropping on the OML, this wouldn't have been possible.
If CC has eliminated the Dead Zone, I say "well done". It is incumbent upon leaders to create a system that does not reward a cadet for purposely doing poorly because the system they created does not reward performance. If the Dead Zone is gone, then tanking will be gone too. If the Dead Zone has in fact been eliminated, the cadet referenced in the article would not have had a reason to remark to his LTC that he wished he has ranked him lower (into the bottom 50%). Finally, the probability of a cadet finishing LDAC in the "dead zone" is a disincentive for cadets to improve their OML position during their MSIII year. Before there was no incentive to improve, say 5 or 10%, and every incentive to tank. Now the incentive, if in fact the dead zone is gone, for a cadet to improve throughout MSIII year and LDAC.
As to the other issue: moving some OMS points from LDAC and onto the campus. This is great for the cadet who has a rapport with the LTC or MAJ leading his Battalion. Not so great if a cadet senses favoritism from the LTC/Major because of any number of unlawful but common prejudices: Gender, Race, scholar/athlete balance, sexual preference, a cadet wanting the same branch the PMS came from, "gung ho-ness", etc. LDAC was a level playing field. If we think every LTC and MAJ heading up Battalions is free of prejudice, then we're living on Mars.
On the positive side, .shifting points from LDAC to Battalion PMS will ensure that cadets give their best effort on campus, and not just slide through campus ROTC activities and place all their hopes on, and all their preparation for, LDAC (putting all their eggs in one basket, so to speak). This is particularly true of the PT scores given on campus. Both the MSIII Fall Semester PT score, and the Spring, matter a lot more than was the case last year. This in my opinion is good... it puts emphasis on PT for an entire school year prior to LDAC. No longer can a cadet blow off Fall PT score (because it had such a small score component), and only bust if for Spring PT and LDAC PT.
Lastly, it appears that CC found that cadets were lacking in critical platoon leader skills because they were afraid to mess up at LDAC when these skills are assessed. I suppose then that the shift in emphasis at LDAC from scoring cadets, to teaching cadets skills, will result in better prepared 2LTs coming out of ROTC. The implication here is that some leadership skills are better delivered at LDAC vs. during campus Labs.