ATP 2-33.4, page 105

18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 A-1 Appendix A Emerging Analytic Techniques This appendix discusses some of the more common techniques in use at the strategic and operational levels. The techniques often incorporate multiple basic structured analytic techniques in combination with diagnostic techniques. These techniques discussed are categorized under contrarian techniques, imaginative techniques, and structured analytic techniques although there is often overlap in specific techniques. OVERVIEW A-1. Emerging analytic techniques are not new. As discussed in this publication, emerging techniques are those that are beginning to be used in the Army but are not so common as to be used regularly at all echelons. These techniques may originate in the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, business, academics, and other organizations, and areas of expertise. Army analysts are finding some of the techniques, often in a modified format, to bring value to analytic assessments. CONTRARIAN TECHNIQUES A-2. Contrarian techniques challenge ongoing assumptions and broaden possible outcomes. They help the analyst to understand intentions of adversaries especially when not clearly stated or known. Contrarian techniques look at the problem from different (often multiple) perspectives, and in so doing allow analysts to better accept analytic critique and grant greater avenue to explore and challenge analytical arguments and mindsets. Proper technique application helps analysts ensure preconceptions and assumptions are thoroughly examined and tested for relevance, implication, and consequence. A-3. There are many contrarian techniques; however, this manual discusses only the following:  Devil’s advocacy.  Team A/Team B.  High impact/Low probability analysis.  “What If” analysis.  Red Hat analysis.  Counterfactual reasoning. DEVIL’S ADVOCACY A-4. Devil’s advocacy is a process for critiquing a proposed analytic assessment, judgment, plan, or decision, usually by a single analyst not previously involved in the deliberations that led to the proposed assessment. Facts A-5. Devil’s advocacy is most effective when used to challenge an analytic consensus or a key assumption regarding a critically important intelligence question. On those issues that one cannot afford to get wrong, devil’s advocacy can provide further confidence that the current analytic line will hold up to close scrutiny. Individual analysts can often assume the role of the devil’s advocate if they have some doubts about a widely held view; or a leader might designate an analyst to challenge the prevailing wisdom in order to reaffirm the group’s confidence in those assessments.