ATP 2-33.4, page 47

Diagnostic Analytic Techniques military variables of military force and assume that these forces will be operated in a particular environment (desert, open plains, arctic conditions). Facts 4-14. Postulating other conditions or assumptions, however, could dramatically impact the assessment. Historically, U.S. analysis of Soviet-Warsaw Pact operations against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had to “assume” a level of non-Soviet-Warsaw Pact reliability (such as would these forces actually fight). e In this case there was high uncertainty; depending on what level of reliability one assumed, the analyst could arrive at very different conclusions about a potential Soviet offensive operation. e@ Or when economists assess the prospects for foreign economic reforms, they may consciously, or not, assume a degree of political stability in those countries or the region that may or may not exist in the future. e Likewise, political analysts reviewing a developing country’s domestic stability might unconsciously assume stable oil prices, when this likely determinant of economic performance and underlying social peace might fluctuate. 4-15. All of the above examples indicate that analysts often rely on stated and unstated assumptions to conduct their analysis. The goal is not to undermine or abandon key assumptions; rather it is to make them explicit and identify what information or developments would demand reconsidering them. 4-16. A key assumptions check is most useful at the beginning of an analytic project. Rechecking assumptions also can be valuable at any time prior to finalizing judgments. Identifying hidden assumptions can be difficult because they are ideas held by you to be true, albeit often subconsciously, and therefore are seldom examined and almost never challenged. 4-17. Explicitly identifying working assumptions during an analytic project helps the analyst understand the key factors shaping the issue and stimulates thinking. Additionally, this technique aids in explaining a logical argument while exposing potentially flawed thinking. Key assumption checks should be collaborative because one cannot effectively self-check. THE METHOD 4-18. Checking for key assumptions requires analysts to consider how their analysis depends on the validity of certain premises. The following four-step process will help analysts: e@ Review what the current analytic line of thinking on the issue appears to be. What do you think you know? What key details aid in accepting that the assumption is true? Write it down for analytic review. e Articulate all the premises, both stated and implied in finished intelligence, which are accepted as true. e@ Challenge the assumption, asking why it must be true and is it valid under all conditions. What is the degree of confidence in those initial answers? e Refine the list of key assumptions to contain only those that “must be true” in order to sustain your analytic line. Consider under what conditions or in the face of what information these assumptions might not hold true. 4-19. Ask the following questions during this process: e How much confidence exists that this assumption is correct? e@ = = What explains the degree of confidence in the assumption? e@ = = What circumstances or information might undermine this assumption? e Isakey assumption more likely a key uncertainty or key factor? e Ifthe assumption proves to be wrong, would it significantly alter the analytic line and how? 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 4-3 Diagnostic Analytic Techniques 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 4-3 military variables of military force and assume that these forces will be operated in a particular environment (desert, open plains, arctic conditions). FACTS 4-14. Postulating other conditions or assumptions, however, could dramatically impact the assessment. Historically, U.S. analysis of Soviet-Warsaw Pact operations against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had to “assume” a level of non-Soviet-Warsaw Pact reliability (such as would these forces actually fight).  In this case there was high uncertainty; depending on what level of reliability one assumed, the analyst could arrive at very different conclusions about a potential Soviet offensive operation.  Or when economists assess the prospects for foreign economic reforms, they may consciously, or not, assume a degree of political stability in those countries or the region that may or may not exist in the future.  Likewise, political analysts reviewing a developing country’s domestic stability might unconsciously assume stable oil prices, when this likely determinant of economic performance and underlying social peace might fluctuate. 4-15. All of the above examples indicate that analysts often rely on stated and unstated assumptions to conduct their analysis. The goal is not to undermine or abandon key assumptions; rather it is to make them explicit and identify what information or developments would demand reconsidering them. 4-16. A key assumptions check is most useful at the beginning of an analytic project. Rechecking assumptions also can be valuable at any time prior to finalizing judgments. Identifying hidden assumptions can be difficult because they are ideas held by you to be true, albeit often subconsciously, and therefore are seldom examined and almost never challenged. 4-17. Explicitly identifying working assumptions during an analytic project helps the analyst understand the key factors shaping the issue and stimulates thinking. Additionally, this technique aids in explaining a logical argument while exposing potentially flawed thinking. Key assumption checks should be collaborative because one cannot effectively self-check. THE METHOD 4-18. Checking for key assumptions requires analysts to consider how their analysis depends on the validity of certain premises. The following four-step process will help analysts:  Review what the current analytic line of thinking on the issue appears to be. What do you think you know? What key details aid in accepting that the assumption is true? Write it down for analytic review.  Articulate all the premises, both stated and implied in finished intelligence, which are accepted as true.  Challenge the assumption, asking why it must be true and is it valid under all conditions. What is the degree of confidence in those initial answers?  Refine the list of key assumptions to contain only those that “must be true” in order to sustain your analytic line. Consider under what conditions or in the face of what information these assumptions might not hold true. 4-19. Ask the following questions during this process:  How much confidence exists that this assumption is correct?  What explains the degree of confidence in the assumption?  What circumstances or information might undermine this assumption?  Is a key assumption more likely a key uncertainty or key factor?  If the assumption proves to be wrong, would it significantly alter the analytic line and how?