A proposition now before the Riksdag would oblige every staffing-responsible organisation to register with Plikt- och prövningsverket the people it has placed in its wartime organisation, and decided in the same document not to regulate by statute, for now, how competing claims to those people are to be resolved. The United Kingdom’s Volunteer Reserve numbers 32,130, of whom 25,780 are in the Army; the strategic-sealift capability that moves British equipment into Europe rests on a workforce of around 150. The three figures describe the same problem at three scales. A defence manufacturer can employ the technicians needed to sustain production while those same people carry obligations to serve in the armed forces. A maintenance provider can plan to support additional equipment while its specialists remain available for military mobilisation. Each arrangement is individually intelligible: civilian employment preserves productive competence, and reserve service makes civilian skills available to national defence. Their compatibility depends on decisions about where people will work when both requirements increase at once, and it becomes consequential when replacing an individual takes longer than the time available to meet either of them. Industrial continuity then depends on more than an employment contract, and military availability on more than membership of a reserve. What no public record yet shows is which of these systems can complete such decisions when demand arrives quickly and at scale.