During constructive and virtual training and experimentation, circumstances exist when human intervention is required to override the outcomes of the computer simulation or to change the state of the simulation. Some examples of human intervention include adjudication of engagements having unreasonable outcomes, changing supply levels, and moving units or individual entities within the battlespace. Overriding the simulation results during event execution should not be a spontaneous decision. If done randomly or without established, well briefed procedures, the training audience or experiment participants will lose confidence in the validity of the computer model. During event execution, the results of human intervention can cause confusion on the part of participants, give unfair advantages (perceived or actual) to one side or another and corrupt data collection. Additionally, these interventions must be performed in a timely manner to have their desired effect. For these reasons, management must implement well reasoned adjudication procedures. For the 2011 Joint Forcible Entry Warfighter Experiment (which included US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine forces operating in a distributed, constructive simulation over two weeks), the Experimentation Environments Branch of the Army's Maneuver Battle Lab developed a set of procedures to provide guidance when simulation outcomes will be changed or when human intervention into the simulation is appropriate. This paper provides analysis from the execution of the experiment of how these procedures impacted experiment objectives and post-experiment data analysis. Discussion includes how data collected from the High Level Architecture (HLA) logger and Damage Effects Server was used to make intervention decisions and reasons for human override of the simulations. The paper closes with lessons learned during this event that can be applied by others in the training and experimentation community of practice.