Conflicts:

"While attacking, mission rules are resolved first, followed by effects from the attacker (including figures friendly to him), then effects from the defender (including figures friendly to him)."

"While attacking"- means within the attack. Once the attack resolves, it is no longer "while attacking", so this ordering cannot apply to conditions triggered by surges at all, unless those conditions are considered to still be included in some 'post-step-7 attack cleanup stage' which does not currently exist.

You can't have it both ways. Either dealing damage triggers attack resolution, which would then be in the same timing window as defeat, OR the conditions would no longer be following the attack conflict resolution rules.

So in the case of the officers, within campaign the imperial would decide whether the focus clears or applies first. In skirmish, the player with initiative would. That is how the rules are written, but not how anyone would play because it is obviously not the intended usage.

So please, simply define what 'attack resolves' means. WHEN has the attack resolved?

So please, simply define what 'attack resolves' means. WHEN has the attack resolved?

After assigning damage and no player can trigger any effects that would resolve in step 7 of the attack template, the attack is resolved.

Either dealing damage triggers attack resolution

Attack resolution happens after assigning damage.

So in the case of the officers, within campaign the imperial would decide whether the focus clears or applies first. In skirmish, the player with initiative would.

Focus reads:

After you resolve an attack or attribute test, you must discard this card.

This is a mission rule and triggers before any effects by the imperial, the player with initiative or the attacker. No player can chose to reverse the order of applying and discarding the stun conditions. Before anything else happens, it is discarded. Then possible focuses are applied again.

I concede defeat. I still don't like the ruling, and my group has agreed to home-rule it differently, but I think we've all said as much as what can be said.

You shouldn't view it as defeat. First of all, the rules are irrelevant as long as your group has fun. These very detailed rules exists mainly because of the Skirmish part of the game. Disregarding them should have very minimal impact on the campaign.

And 2nd: Treat it as a learning experience. Now you have additional understanding on how certain rules are interacting. This enables you to not only to understand future rules better, but also to find actual inaccuracies in present and future rules. You only gained ... there is no defeat