Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) Index

SATs are formal methods that externalise analytical thinking, making it transparent, challengeable, and less susceptible to cognitive biases. Choose the right technique based on the analytical challenge.

When to Use SATs

• When the stakes are high (wrong answer = significant consequence)
• When multiple plausible explanations exist
• When cognitive biases are likely (confirmation, anchoring, availability)
• When you need to communicate your reasoning transparently
• When building on analysis from multiple analysts

Start With the Evidence

The Quality of Information Check is the default first step of any diagnostic run. Before hypotheses are tested or an assessment is written, run /quality-of-information-check on the reports and articles the analysis will rest on. It resolves each one to its originating source, splits it into claims and grades each claim. ach, threat-assessment and writing-assessments prefer graded evidence and run the check themselves when handed raw material.

Skip it when the evidence already arrives as graded evidence items, when there are no documents to grade, or when the user asks to. A skipped check puts those three skills in ungraded mode: the output is labelled as ungraded and confidence is capped at Moderate. Hits in the organisation's own telemetry enter as observations graded "direct, established" (rubric rule R12). Third-party lookup results are rated through source-assessment on the Admiralty scale, which is a separate instrument: the evidence grade applies to claims from documents, and neither is converted into the other.

Technique Categories

Families follow the CIA Tradecraft Primer. The full list, one line per technique with the covering skill or "not in the pack", is in references/when-to-use.md.

Diagnostic Techniques

Purpose: Evaluate existing analysis for quality and bias.

Technique	When to Use	Skill
Quality of Information Check	First, before any other diagnostic technique. Resolve provenance, split reports into claims, grade each claim, list gaps	quality-of-information-check
Key Assumptions Check	Before or after any major assessment — surface and challenge unstated assumptions	key-assumptions-check
Analysis of Competing Hypotheses	Multiple plausible explanations — systematically evaluate each against evidence	ach
Indicators or Signposts of Change	When monitoring a developing situation — define observable markers of change	Not in the pack. horizon-scanning defines early warning indicators in part

Contrarian Techniques

Purpose: Challenge prevailing judgments and expose blind spots.

Technique	When to Use	Skill
Devil's Advocacy	When consensus is strong — take the team's own lead judgment and argue it is wrong	devils-advocacy
What-If Analysis	Assume an event has happened and reason back to how	Not in the pack
High-Impact / Low-Probability	Ensure unlikely but catastrophic scenarios are considered	Not in the pack. Nearest: combine threat-assessment + horizon-scanning
Team A / Team B	Two competing views each deserve a full case	Not in the pack

Imaginative Techniques

Purpose: Generate new ideas, hypotheses, and indicators.

Technique	When to Use	Skill
Brainstorming	Generate hypotheses, IOC types to collect, detection approaches	No dedicated skill — apply freely
Scenario Development	Explore multiple futures for strategic planning	horizon-scanning
Indicators Generation	Define early warning indicators for a scenario	horizon-scanning

Decision Guide: Which Technique?

Are you about to reason from reports or articles? (default first step)
  → Quality of Information Check (quality-of-information-check skill)

Are you evaluating WHO did something?
  → ACH (ach skill)

Are you assessing a THREAT?
  → Threat Assessment (threat-assessment skill)

Are you challenging your OWN analysis?
  → Key Assumptions Check (key-assumptions-check skill)

Are you challenging SOMEONE ELSE's analysis?
  → Devil's Advocacy (devils-advocacy skill)

Are you looking FORWARD (emerging threats)?
  → Horizon Scanning (horizon-scanning skill)

Are you unsure if your evidence is RELIABLE, or where it comes from?
  → Quality of Information Check (quality-of-information-check skill)

Do you need the Admiralty scale DEFINITIONS, or an Admiralty rating for a single lookup result?
  → Source Assessment (source-assessment skill)

Do you have MULTIPLE plausible explanations?
  → ACH (ach skill)

Combining Techniques

For complex assessments, combine techniques:

1. Quality of Information Check first (grade the evidence before reasoning from it)
2. Key Assumptions Check (surface your assumptions)
3. ACH for the core analysis (evaluate hypotheses against the graded claims)
4. Devil's Advocacy to challenge the result (stress-test conclusions)
5. Horizon Scanning for forward-looking implications

ach writes its hypotheses before it reads any evidence. When the sequence is run for ACH, state the question first, let ach list the hypotheses, then run the Quality of Information Check.