Making their way to where they believed the intended target was, they both had the mindset that failure is not an opinion.
As part of the opening paragraph, this is a weak sentence that serves as a kind of microcosm for the problems which earnt my downvote really early in the story. Just re-ordering the clauses in this sentence ('They both had… as they made their way…') would improve how the sentence flows dramatically, and the 'failure is not an opinion' line is both incredibly passe and, uh, a typo.
For a piece whose remainder is mostly made out of dialogue, most of the speech in it is focussed on the tacticool of the situation at hand. While that's not necessarily exclusive to developing character, the two voices are more or less entirely interchangeable and whatever relationship they might have had is relegated to a brief blip of exposition at the end that feels particularly cheap.
North himself doesn't feel any of the emotions one might expect him to feel at the sight of his buddy getting killed by friendly fire: anger? grief? It doesn't come through in his actions or internal monologue afterwards and the result is that whatever emotional impact the scene could have had is watered down to the level of a CoD cutscene. The use of the 'time slows down when something dramatic happens' trope is also a really, really hamhanded way of conveying the significance of the situation when nothing in it so far has proved to me as the reader why it merits that significance.
This needs a really, really in-depth look from a functional perspective. What is each line in the story doing for it, and if it isn't doing enough, can it be revised so it does? Your primary problem is that for a story about a Foundation veteran flashing back to the loss of what I assume is his best friend, this lacks any of the emotional effect or production value which would make it particularly appealing to read. The plot is barebones, and the characters moreso, so what's the appeal?
