We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I'd have to disagree that Kirk's breaking the rules is a solution to the lose-lose test. if the test were to evaluate how a ship captain handles a battle against overwhelming odds* then his solution means nothing, because all he is doing is gaming a game, not fighting a one on three duel.
the post-exercise debriefing is interesting only to the point there the officer tested decides to cross into the neutral zone. in fact, the test could have ended there without the simulated combat.
* I'm assuming the three on one scenario reaches the threshold of the 23d century Lanchester equation or combat salvo model where the destruction of the Enterprise is a certainty**. I assume that because the exercise is described as lose-lose, not lose-maybe.
** Exceptions to these models involve exceptional tactical insight on the part of the smaller force commander and/or serious errors in judgment by leaders of the larger force, for example the Battles of the Nile or Leyte Gulf.
In the non-canon scenario of various Star Trek characters doing this test:
Scotty: trying to out engineering his way only to a tie.
Chekov: Self destruct his ship and taking the enemy with him, as well as the intended rescue vessel.
Sulu: Stay on his side of the neutral zone.