ATP 2-33.4, page 41

Basic Structured Analytic Techniques = Mutually Exclusive. The occurrence of one event precludes the occurrence of the others. Either one or another will occur, but not both. For example, for an elections result if one individual wins, another necessarily cannot. The total probability for the total events must equal 100 percent. = Conditionally Dependent. Events are those for which the probability of occurrence of one event depends on whether or not another has occurred. These are the events within a scenario where the probability for each event in the scenario is multiplied to determine the probability of the end result. 3-45. The following can assist when using subjective probability: © Draw a circle and allocate slices of the circle or “pie” where the relative size of the slice of pie for a hypothesis represents how likely the analyst believes it is true. e Assign numbers to each hypothesis according how strongly it is believed. Determine the subjective probability by dividing the points for each hypothesis by the total of the numbers assigned to all hypotheses. e@ Determine the amount of money you would be willing to bet on a hypothesis being true given that you were to win $1,000,000 if true; the subjective probability in this case would be the ratio of your wager to the total pot (for example, $1,000/$1,000,000 = 0.001 or 0.1 percent). WEIGHTED RANKING 3-46. Weighted ranking is a technique used by an individual or group to gain confidence in the assessment of available alternatives by weighting criteria in importance from the decisionmaker’s point of view. 3-47. Weighted ranking should be used anytime the topic is important enough to warrant the investment of time and there is a need for transparency in the reasoning used to derive the assessment. In intelligence analysis, each criterion used in the technique must be selected and given a weighted importance from both the technique and the threat decisionmaker’s point of view. The insight gained on how each criterion will affect the final outcome allows for a clear, persuasive presentation and argumentation of the assessment. Facts 3-48. Weighted ranking helps mitigate bias and mindset when the analyst using it faithfully follows the method and treats each step as equally important to the outcome. The technique can be used by a group working together as long as a group facilitator keeps the process on track. The validity of the weighting of the criteria can be enhanced by the group through discussions sharing insight into the threat decisionmaker’s purpose and point of view. 3-49. Weighted ranking adds validity to an assessment of alternatives, options, and hypotheses by mitigating bias and mindset in comparison to an analyst’s intuition. Weighted ranking takes more time than other basic analytic techniques. Many analysts avoid this technique because it relies on mathematical computations. THE METHOD 3-50. There are eight steps to accomplish a weighted ranking review of alternative options being assessed. Figure 3-6 on page 3-13 is a condensed view of weighted ranking options. e@ Step 1. Take the alternatives, options, or hypothesis generated or another process to fill in the first column of a matrix under the column heading of Options. e@ Step 2. On a separate sheet of paper or file, develop a comprehensive list of independent criteria the threat would likely use to determine which option to select. List the criteria in a column with one criterion per line. The context of the time, place, and objectives of the action being reviewed should be considered in the development of the criteria. e@ = Step 3. Pair-rank the criteria. Pair-ranking requires each item being ranked to be compared with every other item and the selection of one over the other. 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 3-11 Basic Structured Analytic Techniques 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 3-11  Mutually Exclusive. The occurrence of one event precludes the occurrence of the others. Either one or another will occur, but not both. For example, for an elections result if one individual wins, another necessarily cannot. The total probability for the total events must equal 100 percent.  Conditionally Dependent. Events are those for which the probability of occurrence of one event depends on whether or not another has occurred. These are the events within a scenario where the probability for each event in the scenario is multiplied to determine the probability of the end result. 3-45. The following can assist when using subjective probability:  Draw a circle and allocate slices of the circle or “pie” where the relative size of the slice of pie for a hypothesis represents how likely the analyst believes it is true.  Assign numbers to each hypothesis according how strongly it is believed. Determine the subjective probability by dividing the points for each hypothesis by the total of the numbers assigned to all hypotheses.  Determine the amount of money you would be willing to bet on a hypothesis being true given that you were to win $1,000,000 if true; the subjective probability in this case would be the ratio of your wager to the total pot (for example, $1,000/$1,000,000 = 0.001 or 0.1 percent). WEIGHTED RANKING 3-46. Weighted ranking is a technique used by an individual or group to gain confidence in the assessment of available alternatives by weighting criteria in importance from the decisionmaker’s point of view. 3-47. Weighted ranking should be used anytime the topic is important enough to warrant the investment of time and there is a need for transparency in the reasoning used to derive the assessment. In intelligence analysis, each criterion used in the technique must be selected and given a weighted importance from both the technique and the threat decisionmaker’s point of view. The insight gained on how each criterion will affect the final outcome allows for a clear, persuasive presentation and argumentation of the assessment. FACTS 3-48. Weighted ranking helps mitigate bias and mindset when the analyst using it faithfully follows the method and treats each step as equally important to the outcome. The technique can be used by a group working together as long as a group facilitator keeps the process on track. The validity of the weighting of the criteria can be enhanced by the group through discussions sharing insight into the threat decisionmaker’s purpose and point of view. 3-49. Weighted ranking adds validity to an assessment of alternatives, options, and hypotheses by mitigating bias and mindset in comparison to an analyst’s intuition. Weighted ranking takes more time than other basic analytic techniques. Many analysts avoid this technique because it relies on mathematical computations. THE METHOD 3-50. There are eight steps to accomplish a weighted ranking review of alternative options being assessed. Figure 3-6 on page 3-13 is a condensed view of weighted ranking options.  Step 1. Take the alternatives, options, or hypothesis generated or another process to fill in the first column of a matrix under the column heading of Options.  Step 2. On a separate sheet of paper or file, develop a comprehensive list of independent criteria the threat would likely use to determine which option to select. List the criteria in a column with one criterion per line. The context of the time, place, and objectives of the action being reviewed should be considered in the development of the criteria.  Step 3. Pair-rank the criteria. Pair-ranking requires each item being ranked to be compared with every other item and the selection of one over the other.