red-team-analysis

name	red-team-analysis
description	Use when challenging a prevailing analytical judgment, the user asks "what is the opposing case?" / "argue the other side", or wants a devil's-advocate review of an assessment. Deliberately argues the opposite position to expose weaknesses.
user-invocable	true
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0"}

Red Team Analysis (Devil's Advocate)

When consensus is strong, this technique deliberately argues the opposing position. The goal is not to be contrarian for its own sake — it's to find genuine weaknesses in the prevailing analysis before they become blind spots.

When to Use

• Consensus is strong and unchallenged
• High-stakes assessment (wrong conclusion = significant harm)
• Analysis has been produced quickly under pressure
• The same team that collected also analysed (potential tunnel vision)
• Before publishing a product that will drive significant decisions

Procedure

Step 1: State the Prevailing Judgment

Write the current analytical consensus clearly and completely.

Step 2: Argue Against It (With Maximum Effort)

Deliberately and rigorously construct the best possible case AGAINST the prevailing judgment:

• What evidence is being overweighted?
• What alternative explanations exist for the same evidence?
• What evidence has been ignored or underweighted?
• What assumptions are vulnerable? (cross-reference with key-assumptions-check)
• What would a sophisticated adversary do to make us believe the prevailing judgment?
• What historical cases looked similar but turned out differently?

Step 3: Assess the Red Team Arguments

Honestly evaluate:

• Are any red team arguments compelling enough to change the judgment?
• Do they warrant lowering the confidence level?
• Do they identify intelligence gaps that should be filled?
• Do they suggest alternative hypotheses that should be tracked?

Step 4: Report

## Red Team Analysis: [Prevailing Judgment]

### Prevailing Judgment
[The assessment being challenged]

### Red Team Case
[The best case against the prevailing judgment]

#### Overweighted Evidence
- [Evidence that may be given too much weight, and why]

#### Alternative Explanations
- [Alternative explanations for the same evidence]

#### Ignored/Underweighted Evidence
- [Evidence pointing away from the prevailing judgment]

#### Vulnerable Assumptions
- [Assumptions the prevailing judgment depends on]

### Red Team Assessment
[How compelling is the red team case?]
- **Compelling**: Prevailing judgment should be revised
- **Partially compelling**: Confidence should be lowered
- **Not compelling**: Prevailing judgment stands, but the exercise identified useful intelligence gaps

### Recommendations
- [Actions: revise judgment, lower confidence, collect against gaps, track alternative hypothesis]

Rules

• Argue with genuine effort — a weak red team is worse than no red team
• Separate the red team from the original analysis (different perspective, ideally different analyst)
• Red team findings must be incorporated into the final product
• A successful red team doesn't mean the original was wrong — it means we're more confident (or appropriately less confident) in the result