ATP 2-33.4, page 119
Intelligence Analysis
Army Techniques Publication: Intelligence Analysis
2014 public edition (Archive.org)
Searchable page text (OCR / PDF)
Emerging Analytic Techniques
18 August 2014
ATP 2-33.4
A-15
matrix, focusing on a single item of evidence or argument and examining how it relates to each
hypothesis. Now, work down the matrix, looking at each hypothesis as a whole. The matrix
format gives an overview of all the evidence for and against all the hypotheses, so you can
examine all the hypotheses together and have them compete against each other for your
approval.
Step 6. Analyze how sensitive your conclusion is to a few critical items of evidence. Consider
the consequences for your analysis if that evidence were wrong, misleading, or subject to a
different interpretation. In step 3 you identified the evidence and arguments that were most
diagnostic, and in step 5 you used these findings to make tentative judgments about the
hypotheses. Now, go back and question the few linchpin assumptions or items of evidence that
really drive the outcome of your analysis in one direction or the other. For example:
Are there questionable assumptions that underlie your understanding and interpretation?
Are there alternative explanations or interpretations?
Could the evidence be incomplete and, therefore, misleading?
Step 7. Report conclusions. Discuss the relative likelihood of all the hypotheses, not just the
most likely one. If your report is to be used as the basis for decisionmaking, it will be helpful for
the decisionmaker to know the relative likelihood of all the alternative possibilities. Analytical
judgments are never certain. There is always a good possibility of their being wrong.
Decisionmakers need to make decisions on the basis of a full set of alternative possibilities, not
just the single most likely alternative. Contingency or fallback plans may be needed in case one
of the less likely alternatives turns out to be true.
Step 8. Identify milestones for future observation that may indicate events are taking a
different course than expected. Analytical conclusions should always be regarded as tentative.
The situation may change, or it may remain unchanged while you receive new information that
alters your appraisal. It is always helpful to specify in advance things one should look for or be
alert to that, if observed, would suggest a significant change in the probabilities. This is useful
for intelligence consumers who are following the situation on a continuing basis. Specifying in
advance what would cause you to change your mind will also make it more difficult for you to
rationalize such developments, if they occur, as not really requiring any modification of your
judgment.
A-84. Three key elements distinguish analysis of competing hypotheses from conventional intuitive
analysis:
Analysis starts with a full set of alternative possibilities, rather than with a most likely alternative
for which the analyst seeks confirmation. This ensures that alternative hypotheses receive equal
and fair treatment.
Analysis identifies and emphasizes the few items of evidence or assumptions that have the
greatest diagnostic value in judging the relative likelihood of the alternative hypotheses. In
conventional intuitive analysis, key evidence may also be consistent with alternative hypotheses;
it is rarely considered explicitly and is often ignored.
Analysis of competing hypotheses involves seeking evidence to refute hypotheses. The most
probable hypothesis is usually the one with the least evidence against it, not the one with the
most evidence for it. Conventional analysis generally entails looking for evidence to confirm a
favored hypothesis.