I am interested in how this turns out. Long story short, a few years ago I worked on a ruleset that would allow ASL to be used to resolve an operational level computer game. I ran into a few problems, however.
The biggest one involved casualties. The operational level game rightly set limits for when an attack or defense would break off after hitting a casualty threshold, usually somewhere around 10%, which is pretty realistic if you think about it. But in ASL, a squad is eliminated completely, and if you only have 12 squads attacking, ending the scenario when 2 of them are KIA is not really fun to play out, which ruins the whole point. So a layer of rules had to be grafted on both to extend the scenario if the attacker felt there was momentum, and then have some sort of mechanism to reflect that a lost squad in ASL certainly does not translate into 10 KIA soldiers.
The second problem involved scenario objectives. The operational game, like IRL, rewarded possession of terrain and casualty ratios. Casualty ratios as a scenario objective were problematic because with the limitations outlined above, scenarios tended to end too quickly to be fun to play. Terrain was problematic because the map used for the operational level were not zone but rather (hidden) hex based. This meant that advances had to be measured on the ASL map and then fed back into the operational game for resolution onto the game map. This required some finagling, but was achievable. But without scenario objectives other than to generally take terrain and inflict casualties, the scenarios tended into a lot slower paced efforts centering around carefully taking or denying ground while minimizing risk. Super realistic, but not really fun to play, especially given the low casualty thresholds. I did briefly consider a sort of scenario pack a-la Warhammer 40K or FOW, whereby you would fight a generic "Attack" or "Defend" or "Ambush" scenario, but I figured it would be too limiting and too difficult to graft onto ASL maps in a satisfying way.
The third problem was OBA. A Normandy '44 operational campaign has a massive amount of artillery available, especially for the Americans. An operational level system was in place to limit a unit's on-call artillery, but even this was way too powerful in ASL terms. A fix was instituted whereby scenarios were limited to 2 modules per side per scenario, weighted so that heavier modules were less likely to appear, but even then scenarios fell into a pattern that involved OBA getting lucky enough to cause enough casualties to trigger defender retreat without the attacker having to do much else. Not super realistic, as ASL OBA is overpowered just a bit, and also not fun to play.
So I am really really interested in how the designers solved the above problems here, as well as others that I'm sure didn't come up in my testing. I suspect that things are simplified by an operational layer that seeks a lot less detail and fidelity than the one I was trying to deal with - no need to track how the cohesion and leadership values assigned by the operational game translate into the scenario ELR and troop quality, for example, and working in zones eliminates a lot of fiddling with figuring out how much ground was gained/lost for the battle report. Another problem that I can see developing is snowballing, and I am interested to see how that is handled.
I hope that these and other issues with making ASL "operational" are overcome, and this system is the breakthrough that people hope for! I know that I would definitely love to play ASL on both an operational and tactical level, and I'm sure I'm not the only one!