ATP 2-33.4, page 107

Emerging Analytic Techniques 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 A-3  Are there indicators of possible deception that the assessment failed to address or provide suitable explanation?  Are there any remaining information gaps present (within the assessment) that hinder analytic ability to bring the assessment to a decisive conclusion? Do those information gaps still exist or do we now possess more relevant data? A-12. The devil’s advocate should consider drafting a separate contrarian paper and/or assessment that lays out the arguments for a different analytic conclusion if the review uncovers major analytic flaws. The devil’s advocate must be sure any products generated clearly lay out the conventional wisdom and are identified as an explicitly devil’s advocate project to avoid confusion with the current accepted analytic assessment. TEAM A/TEAM B A-13. Team A/Team B is a process for comparing, contrasting, and clarifying two or more equally valid analytic assessments. This is done by multiple teams of analysts, each working along different lines of analysis. Team A/Team B involves separate analytic teams that contrast two (or more) views or competing hypotheses. Facts A-14. If there are at least two competing views within an analytic office, then Team A/Team B analysis can be the appropriate technique to use to clarify the issue. Analysts or the analytic team leader applies this technique to challenge (if not clarify) two or more competing views or opinions. The value added in using this specific technique is that its usage can help opposing groups see merit in the other groups’ perspective. This reduces friction and helps narrow the differences so everyone gets their say. Note. If opposing positions are well established, it can be useful to place analysts on teams that will advocate positions they normally do not support; forcing analysts to argue the other side tends to make them more aware of their own mindset. A-15. Developing a full-blown Team A/Team B requires a significant commitment of analytic time and resources. Consider carefully if the analytic issue merits the attention. The Method A-16. There are two distinct phases within the method: analytic phase and debate phase. The steps within the analytic phase are—  Step 1. Identify the two or more competing hypotheses.  Step 2. Form teams and designate individuals to develop the best case for each hypothesis.  Step 3. Review information that supports each respective position.  Step 4. Identify missing information that would support or bolster their hypotheses.  Step 5. Prepare structured argument with an explicit discussion of—  Key assumptions.  Key piece of evidence.  Articulation of the logic behind the argument. A-17. The debate phase is an oral presentation of the alternative arguments and rebuttals in parallel fashion. The steps within the debate phase are—  Step 1. Set aside the time for a formal debate or an informal brainstorming session.  Step 2. Have an independent jury of peers listen to the oral presentation and be prepared to question the teams regarding their assumptions, evidence, and/or logic.  Step 3. Allow each team to present its case, challenge the other team’s arguments, and rebut the opponent’s critique of its case.  Step 4. The jury considers the strength of each presentation and recommends possible next steps for further research and collection efforts.