ATP 2-33.4, page 106
Intelligence Analysis
Army Techniques Publication: Intelligence Analysis
2014 public edition (Archive.org)
Searchable page text (OCR / PDF)
Appendix A
A-2
ATP 2-33.4
18 August 2014
A-6. In some cases, the analyst or a team can review a key assumption of a critical judgment in the course
of their work, or a separate analytic product can be generated that arrays all the arguments and data that
support a contrary assessment or hypothesis.
A-7. The devil’s advocacy process can highlight weaknesses in a current analytic judgment or help to
reaffirm the analyst’s confidence in the assessment by—
Explicitly challenging key assumptions to see if they will not hold up under some circumstances.
Identifying any faulty logic or information that would undermine the key analytic judgments.
Presenting alternative hypotheses that would explain the current body of information available to
analysts.
A-8. Successful application of devil’s advocacy could result in—
Determining the current analytic line was sound.
Determining the argument is still the strongest, but there are areas where further analysis is
needed.
Determining some serious flaws in logic or supporting evidence that suggests the analytic line
needs to be changed.
A-9. Devil’s advocacy challenges a single strongly held view by building the best possible case for an
alternate explanation. The analyst would apply it to challenge an analytic consensus or a key assumption
regarding a critical intelligence question, and the value added in using this specific technique is that it
highlights weaknesses in current analytic judgment or helps to reaffirm one’s confidence in that current
analytic judgment.
The Method
A-10. The devil’s advocate is charged with challenging the proposed assessment by building the strongest
possible case against it. There is no prescribed procedure, but the following steps should be followed at a
minimum:
Outline the main points and key assumptions and characterize the evidence supporting current
analytic view.
Select one or more assumptions that appear the most susceptible to challenge.
Review the data used to determine questionable validity, possible deception, and the existence of
gaps.
Highlight evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis or contradicts current thinking.
Present findings that demonstrate flawed assumptions, poor evidence, or possible deception.
Devil’s Advocacy Tips
A-11. The devil’s advocate should keep the following in mind as the problem set or assessment is
examined:
What were the analytic processes used to create this assessment?
What are the sources of uncertainty within the assessment?
What are the critical assumptions within the assessment?
What is the diagnosticity of the evidence provided or cited within the assessment?
Does any of the evidence appear anomalous? Where perhaps does it deviate from the norm of
what we would expect to see?
Were there any changes in the broad environment in which events are happening (or have
happened)?
Was an alternative decision model used within the assessment? If so, can you see why and where
it was applied? Perhaps we cannot clearly see how a conclusion or finding was reached nor
understand the assessment’s rational process.
Availability of cultural expertise.