structured-analytic-techniques

name	structured-analytic-techniques
description	Reviews an analytic product's use of structured techniques (Red Team, Alternative Futures, brainstorming, Outside-In, Indicators); invoke when choosing or sequencing one too.
kind	skill
status	ready
provenance	{"principles":["P004","P006","P007","P011","P026","P030","P033","P039","P042","P043","P072","P079","P080"],"claims":["C00014","C00015","C00033","C00034","C00035","C00036","C00037","C00058","C00059","C00060","C00061","C00062"],"evidence":[],"source_anchors":[]}

Structured Analytic Techniques

Purpose

Review whether an analytic product selected, executed, and sequenced the structured technique that its stage, uncertainty, and stakes actually called for — a perspective-breaking technique such as Red Team or Alternative Futures where mirror-imaging or a single-outcome forecast is the risk, brainstorming and Outside-In Thinking at conceptualization, Indicators to track a judgment afterward — rather than reaching for whichever technique is already habitual regardless of the project's stage. When no technique has been picked yet, this skill instead recommends and sequences one for the problem at hand. Either way it audits or advises on the technique's fit and execution, never the substantive conclusion it produces.

When to use

• A judgment rests on a single hypothesis or a confident single-outcome forecast, and it is unclear whether a perspective-breaking technique was ever run to test whether a different framing survives.
• An assessment of a foreign leader, group, or organization assumes they reason the way the analyst would, rather than having been tested by a team steeped in that actor's own environment.
• Small anomalies are being explained away one at a time instead of tested against a deliberately surprising alternative account built by working backward from it.
• The caller is choosing or sequencing which structured technique fits a new or ongoing project — what to run at the start, throughout, during hypothesis testing, and before the judgment is finalized.
• A project moved straight from conceptualization to the factors already on the table, without first surveying the outside social, technological, economic, or political forces that could reshape the problem.
• A tradeoff decision is being argued qualitatively instead of structured first, with its attributes weighed through a formal method once real stakes are involved.
• A situation is being tracked over time, or a rival-hypothesis debate has become personalized, with no agreed list of observable indicators to depersonalize it and flag change.
• The assigned question reads as ill-posed or constraining, and it is unclear whether that framing was challenged before being taken as given.
• A topic has been owned by the same analyst or team for a long time, or a brainstorming session produced a flat or narrow set of hypotheses and the working conditions themselves may explain why — either calls for a deliberately fresh input such as a newcomer's view, lightweight political gaming, or a properly run two-phase session.
• The number of hypotheses being carried was fixed by convention rather than scaled to the uncertainty and stakes involved.

Procedure

1. Determine the mode: if the caller submits a finished or drafted analytic judgment or forecast for critique, take the review path in steps 2-9; if the caller is instead choosing, designing, or sequencing a technique before any judgment exists, skip straight to the advise/compare path in step 10 rather than forcing a finding frame onto a decision that has not been made yet.
2. Check whether the product treats a single hypothesis or single-outcome forecast as settled without ever contesting it: was a Red Team run — an adversary-steeped team reasoning and writing in the first person, without caveats — or an Alternative Futures analysis built by crossing the two most critical, uncertain drivers into four future worlds (P004, P006)?
3. Where the judgment concerns a foreign leader, group, or organization, confirm it was tested against a team steeped in that actor's own culture and organization rather than assumed to mirror the analyst's own reasoning, and note that even a well-run Red Team only reduces, never eliminates, that mind-set (P004).
4. Where small anomalies are accumulating against the prevailing account, or a low-probability, high-consequence outcome is under-explored, check whether a perspective technique such as thinking backwards — assume the surprising outcome happened, then explain how — was used to shift the question from whether to how (P007).
5. Confirm the project's technique sequence matched its stage: brainstorming, a Key Assumptions Check, and Outside-In Thinking at the start; Indicators and ACH revisited throughout as evidence arrives; a contrarian or Red Team pass plus an intelligence-gap review during hypothesis testing; and, before finalizing, a re-check of key assumptions, a further brainstorm for missed hypotheses, Devil's Advocacy against an unquestioned consensus, and a key-indicators list (P011). Where brainstorming was the tool, confirm it ran as a two-phase divergent-then-convergent session with no idea censored, killer phrases banned, at least one outsider present, and rank left at the door (P026).
6. If Outside-In Thinking was due at conceptualization, confirm it started from broad, uncontrollable social, technological, economic, environmental, and political forces before narrowing to controllable factors, testing each candidate force against evidence rather than assuming its relevance (P039).
7. Confirm a tracking or rival-hypothesis judgment carries an Indicators or Signposts list of observable events — a separate expected-observables list per hypothesis when rivals are in play — and that a sharply divided debate is being depersonalized through an agreed list rather than personal argument (P033).
8. Check whether the assigned question was accepted as posed even though it reads as ill-posed or constraining, when the better move was pushing back up the chain with a reformulated question (P042); and whether a tradeoff decision was structured as a list, table, tree, or matrix before being argued qualitatively, with multiattribute utility and a sensitivity analysis run once real tradeoffs are at stake (P043).

Inputs

• The analytic judgment, forecast, or draft product under review — or, in advise/compare mode, the problem statement, its uncertainty and stakes, and where the project sits in its timeline (start, ongoing, hypothesis testing, or pre-publication).
• Which hypotheses have been considered, and whether a rival account or forecast has been tested against the favored one.
• A record of which structured techniques, if any, have already been run, and at what point in the project.
• For a judgment about a foreign leader, group, or organization, what is known about that actor's own culture, organization, and history (needed to staff or evaluate a Red Team).
• For a tracking judgment, the Indicators or Signposts list currently in use, if any, and whether rival hypotheses each have their own list.
• For a tradeoff decision, the attributes being weighed and any existing structure (list, table, tree, or matrix).
• Whether the topic has been owned by the same analyst or team for an extended period, and what is known about the team's working conditions (autonomy, security, supervision, project size).

Output

In review mode, per finding: name the reasoning gap (a stage-inappropriate or missing technique, an untested single-outcome forecast, an unexamined foreign mind-set, a personalized rival-hypothesis debate, an unstructured tradeoff, a stale hypothesis count or topic), cite the principle(s) it rests on, name the corrective technique and how to run it, state the residual uncertainty the correction leaves, and end with a concrete next step. Order findings highest-impact first. Never issue the substantive analytic judgment or forecast yourself — a finding names the reasoning gap and the corrective technique, not the answer.

In advise mode, name the recommended technique, cite the principle(s) behind it, and state the residual uncertainty even once it is run. In compare mode, name each candidate technique's trade-off and when it is stronger, tied to the same principles. Never close any of the three with a bare technique name or checklist tick in place of this structure.

Anti-patterns to flag

• A single-outcome forecast or unchallenged hypothesis published with no Red Team or Alternative Futures pass ever attempted, despite real competing views or high uncertainty (P004, P006).
• A judgment about a foreign actor argued from what the analyst would do in that situation, with no team steeped in the actor's own culture and organization ever staffed to test it (P004).
• Anomalies accumulating against a prevailing account explained away one at a time, with no perspective technique — assuming the surprising event happened and working backward from it — ever used to test the alternative directly (P007).
• A technique run at the wrong project stage: brainstorming or a Key Assumptions Check skipped at the start, Indicators or ACH abandoned once set instead of revisited as evidence arrives, or no Devil's Advocacy run against an unquestioned consensus before publication (P011).
• A brainstorming session run with ideas censored on the spot, killer phrases allowed, no outsider present, or rank pulled to set an official line (P026).
• A stalled or unproductive brainstorming or technique-selection effort blamed on the analysts' talent, when the likelier cause is unfavorable conditions — no autonomy, no professional security, a hands-on superior, or an oversized project (P030).
• A situation tracked with no Indicators or Signposts list, or a rival-hypothesis debate argued personally with no agreed, depersonalizing list of observable events (P033).
• Analysis narrowed straight to the familiar, controllable factors with no Outside-In pass across the uncontrollable social, technological, economic, environmental, or political forces first (P039).
• An ill-posed or constraining question answered as given, with no push back up the chain for a better formulation (P042).
• A tradeoff argued qualitatively with no problem structure chosen first, or a real tradeoff never run through multiattribute utility and a sensitivity analysis (P043).
• A stale topic worked by the same analyst or team indefinitely with no lightweight political-gaming exercise or outside newcomer's view ever brought in (P072, P079).
• A hypothesis count fixed at some conventional number regardless of the uncertainty and policy stakes involved, with no grouping applied once the set grows past about seven (P080).

References

See ../../references/analytic-method-principles-index.md for the full principle catalogue. For adjacent concerns, see the sibling skills: competing-hypotheses-and-diagnostic-evidence owns the ACH matrix and evidence-diagnosticity work that the Indicators-and-ACH sequencing in P011 leans on; assumptions-framing-and-analytic-writing owns the Key Assumptions Check and linchpin-assumption content that this skill only places on the project timeline; analytic-collaboration-training-and-process owns Devil's Advocacy and the institutionalized competing-view procedures this skill schedules before finalizing; mindsets-schemata-and-perception owns the premature-closure and schema content that Red Team, thinking-backwards, and Outside-In Thinking exist to correct.

Provenance

Derived solely from P004, P006, P007, P011, P026, P030, P033, P039, P042, P043, P072, P079, and P080 (the CIA Sherman Kent School Tradecraft Primer; Psychology of Intelligence Analysis — both distillation-only; see the frontmatter above for the full principle and claim list).