20:
143:
133:
establishes some guidelines for conveying the analytic confidence in an intelligence product. The summary document states each review should include, among other things, whether the product or products concerned were based on all sources of available intelligence, properly describe the quality and
120:
about the difference between psychological and analytic confidence. Analysts often lessened certainty statements when confronted with challenging analysis, instead of proscribing a level of analytic confidence to explain those concerns. By lessening certainty levels due to a lack of confidence, a
104:
movement, especially in psychological decision theory. This branch of psychology did not set out to study analytic confidence as it pertains to intelligence reporting. Rather, the advances in cognitive psychology established a groundwork for understanding well calibrated confidence levels in
90:
Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources
134:
reliability of underlying sources, properly caveat and express uncertainties or confidence in analytic judgments, and properly distinguish between underlying intelligence and the assumptions and judgments of analysts.
80:, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and still carries a risk of being wrong.
160:
important to determining analytic confidence. The key areas of the table include the use of a structured method, overall source reliability, source corroboration and agreement, level of
130:
156:
use the
Peterson Table of Analytic Confidence Assessment to determine the level of analytic confidence in their estimative statements. The table outlines certain areas in the
205:
33:
48:. An analytic confidence rating pairs with a statement using a word of estimative probability to form a complete analytic statement.
234:
61:
65:
187:
83:
Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or
112:, as opposed to the overall confidence the analyst had in the analysis itself. This highlights the degree of
101:
157:
150:
49:
68:
includes explanations of the three levels of analytic confidence made in estimative statements.
45:
206:
Appropriate
Factors to Consider When Assessing Analytic Confidence in Intelligence Analysis
164:
on the subject or topic, amount of peer collaboration, task complexity, and time pressure.
216:
142:
228:
84:
19:
77:
37:
161:
113:
109:
73:
41:
36:
analysts to convey doubt to decision makers about a statement of estimative
40:. The need for analytic confidence ratings arise from analysts' imperfect
153:
117:
108:
Early accounts of explaining analytic confidence focused on certainty
141:
18:
121:
dangerous possibility of misrepresenting the target existed.
217:
56:
Levels of analytic confidence in national security reports
131:
Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
125:
Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
52:
for determining analytic confidence remain in infancy.
100:Analytic confidence beginnings coincide with the
60:In an effort to apply more rigorous standards to
146:A visual representation of the Peterson Table
8:
201:
199:
197:
195:
188:Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
23:Cover of a National Intelligence Estimate
87:to warrant a higher level of confidence.
16:Rating employed by intelligence analysts
173:
183:
181:
179:
177:
7:
72:High confidence generally indicates
14:
62:National Intelligence Estimates
1:
66:National Intelligence Council
251:
96:Origins and early history
32:is a rating employed by
147:
76:based on high-quality
24:
235:Intelligence analysis
145:
22:
102:cognitive psychology
29:Analytic confidence
158:intelligence cycle
151:Mercyhurst College
148:
138:Mercyhurst College
50:Scientific methods
25:
105:decision making.
242:
219:
214:
208:
203:
190:
185:
46:conceptual model
250:
249:
245:
244:
243:
241:
240:
239:
225:
224:
223:
222:
215:
211:
204:
193:
186:
175:
170:
140:
127:
98:
58:
17:
12:
11:
5:
248:
246:
238:
237:
227:
226:
221:
220:
209:
191:
172:
171:
169:
166:
139:
136:
126:
123:
97:
94:
93:
92:
88:
81:
57:
54:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
247:
236:
233:
232:
230:
218:
213:
210:
207:
202:
200:
198:
196:
192:
189:
184:
182:
180:
178:
174:
167:
165:
163:
159:
155:
152:
144:
137:
135:
132:
124:
122:
119:
115:
111:
106:
103:
95:
89:
86:
85:corroboration
82:
79:
75:
71:
70:
69:
67:
63:
55:
53:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
31:
30:
21:
212:
149:
128:
107:
99:
59:
34:intelligence
28:
27:
26:
78:information
38:probability
168:References
162:expertise
114:confusion
110:forecasts
74:judgments
42:knowledge
229:Category
154:students
118:scholars
91:existed.
116:among
64:, the
44:of a
129:The
231::
194:^
176:^
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
