Let me see if I can synthesize what's going on, to see whether I'm actually getting it.
You're most of the way there.
Detection concerns the navigators. It involves analyzing sensor data in order to actually notice things around the ship, tracking them, and extracting further information from them (distance, trajectory, size...) with detailed scans. Detection is automatic at a certain range (calculated from computer model number) but might involve a throw past that.
If you want to know information ABOUT a sensor contact, you're looking towards the navigator station. You'll want to have detailed scans to determine things like whether the contact has any external turrets, estimates of the target's fuel state (mostly empty after jump, mostly full before jump), current power generation levels (indicating combat ready or not), is the craft maneuvering evasively (anticipating combat) or simply accelerating in a straight line trajectory ... etc. etc. etc.
Those details are important intel information that ought to feed into command decisions (including, "Red Alert!").
Even things like the material the hull is constructed from ...
- TL=7-9 Composite Laminates
- TL=A-B Crystaliron
- TL=C-D Superdense
- TL=E-F Bonded Superdense
... will offer "different returns" on sensor scans, because each material will have its own characteristic sensor signature pattern.
So if you're looking at what
ought to be a TL=9 Free Trader ... but the sensor signature of the hull is indicating the return pattern of a Superdense hull material ... you're probably looking at
not a stock Free Trader but some sort of TL=C-D craft (probably TL=D, which adds +1 code factor to missiles and lasers, among other things, under LBB5.80 construction and combat rules) that is
masquerading as a Free Trader and is probably some sort of Q-ship decoy instead, intended to take on pirates and raiders (or has become a pirate/raider itself!).
The 200 ton displacement is right.
The 1G (for now) acceleration is right.
The EP=2 (for now) power generation level is right.
But the hull material looks like some kind of higher tech level ARMOR (above code: 0) ... so that probably isn't a TL=9 Free Trader that you've got on sensors.
Can't see any weapons ... but the ship might be mounting (concealable) pop up turrets, that won't be detectable until combat begins.
If it's a TL=D Q-ship, it could have (up to) a computer model/7 installed onboard, which would make it a formidable opponent to engage.
Those kinds of contextual details require PARSING the data coming out of the sensors to characterize the contact beyond the "Yup, there's something there!" of just seeing a blip on the holo display.
Targeting concerns the gunners. It involves controlling the weaponry of the ship in order to bring fire effectively upon a target when desired. Targeting is not possible without prior detection. To determine whether a firing solution is effective, a throw is required (which is the to-hit throw in space combat!).
This is where you get into parsing the nuance questions.
My personal take is that any time a weapon is fired at a target, it is USED.
That means that ordnance is expended, EPs are consumed ... the weapon is used.
Whether that weapon usage HITS or not (attack=success) is what the To Hit roll is about.
Weapons can be used ... but still MISS.
So technically isn't not a matter of whether a firing solution is "effective" ... because that implies that if the To Hit roll is "failed" then the weapon doesn't get fired. Can't get a solution/clean shot, don't shoot, is not the way that this plays here.
Instead, what happens is that the computers will yield a "probability for a hit" (give you a threshold for success on the dice roll) and then the gunner has to decide whether or not to "take a shot" and roll the dice. In other words, hits are not "predetermined" before firing ... except in cases where you need to roll 2+ on 2d6 in order to be successful, because probability to hit is 100% ("You may fire when ready.").
In a roleplaying context (as opposed to a wargaming context), this has important implications.
Any kind of "shot across the bow" type of warning fire (to get the attention of another craft) is going to involve USE of a weapon. However, "painting" a target to indicate that you've got a weapon solution to fire with is different and would not involve using a weapon to shoot (just demonstrate that you're prepared to shoot, if you have to).
In roleplaying contexts, this can turn into a either a "fast draw" type of contest or become a "stare down" type of intimidation so that weapons do not need to be used. Demonstrating that you've got a target "dead to rights" long enough for them to surrender without shots needing to be fired is merely one possible path to victory.
