Methodologies for Sorting Through the Chaff Presentation to: DHS/IAIP 27 January 2005

1. Methodologies for Sorting Through the ChaffPresentation to: DHS/IAIP27 January 2005 Pherson Associates, LLC • Email: furson@aol.com

2. Recognizing the Good Stuff: Using What If? Analysis and Outside-In Thinking to generate generic Indicators or Signposts Empirically-derived Checklists Eliminating the Bad Stuff: Deception Detection Analysis of Competing Hypotheses Five Approaches

3. Recognizing the Good Stuff

4. Definition: Taking as a given that an event has occurred and then explaining how it came about. Example: Three years ago, terrorists just tried to crash a plane into the Eiffel tower. What if we had asked ourselves then: “Would they do something similar in the United States? How would they pull this off?” What If? Analysis

5. Value Added: Focuses attention on all the things that must fall into place for a low probability--but high impact--event to actually occur. Alerts you to potentially useful reporting that you might have ignored or would have regarded as noise. What If? Analysis

6. The Method: Assume that what might be the case, is the case. Develop a chain of argumentation based on both evidence and logic explaining how this outcome actually could have come about. This is called “thinking backwards.” Generate a list of signposts or “observables” that would indicate that this outcome is coming about. Monitor the traffic for any evidence that relates to the signposts or indicators. What If? Analysis

7. Definition: A technique for identifying the full range of forces, factors, and trends that would indirectly shape an issue. Examples: In brainstorming how al-Qaeda elements are communicating with each other, are there any technological trends or new technologies that we need to consider (eg., use of “unsent” email messages, MP3, or IPods)? Outside-In Thinking

8. Inside-Out versus Outside-In Thinking

9. Question: How do we assess a terrorist threat? Inside-Out Approach: Monitor reporting for tipoffs/lead information. Extrapolate patterns from reporting trends. Outside-In Approach: Identify relevant global trends. Assess how they might affect when, where, and how a terrorist might launch an attack. Competing Approaches

10. The Method: Generate a generic description of the problem at hand. List all the factors (social, technological, economic) that could have an impact (the subject usually has little influence over these factors but can exploit them). Next list the factors over which the subject can exert some influence (choice of partners, methods of communication, capability to acquire feedback, etc.). Assess how each of these factors could have an impact. Look for data that suggests they actually have an impact. Outside-In Thinking

11. The Method: Establish categories of data (walk-ins, detainee reports, émigré reporting, human sources, etc.) Review the reporting within each category and establish criteria for what turned out to be useful or not. Develop a rough scale. For example, reporting that turned out to be useful usually met these criteria; bad reporting often fell into these boxes, etc. Use these lists to rate the utility of incoming reporting. Rate the new reporting based on these lists and revise/refine the lists over time. Empirically-derived Checklists

12. Eliminating the Bad Stuff

13. Look for deception when: Accepting new information would require you to change your mind, alter a key assumption, or divert significant resources (protect all apartment buildings or shopping centers). Your analysis hinges on a single or key piece of data. The terrorists have a great deal to gain, or lose, if you take a specific action (discount a key source). You know they have an effective feedback channel. (they are likely to learn of your reaction in the press). Detecting Deception

14. Is the source reliable? Does the source have access? Is the source vulnerable to control or manipulation by the terrorists? Have the terrorists tried to deceive us in this way in the past? Tactical Indicators of Deception

15. How accurate is the source’s reporting? Examine the whole chain of evidence, including translations! Does the critical evidence check out? The subsource can be more critical than the source. Does evidence from one source (HUMINT) conflict with another source (OSINT)? Do other sources of information provide corroborating evidence? Tactical Indicators of Deception

16. Be suspicious if forced to rely on sources who have not been seen or directly interviewed. Try not to rely exclusively on non-material evidence (verbal intelligence). Check all instances in which a source’s reports that initially appeared correct later turned out to be wrong-- and yet the source always seemed to offer a good explanation for the discrepancy. Heed the opinions of those closest to the reporting. Know the enemy’s limitations as well as his capabilities. How to Avoid Deception

17. Definition: The identification of a complete set of alternative hypotheses, the systematic evaluation of data that is consistent and inconsistent with each hypothesis, and the rejection of hypotheses that contain too much inconsistent data. Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

18. ACH helps you overcome three fundamental analytic traps: Selective perception (or coming to closure too quickly) that usually results from focusing on a single hypothesis. A failure to generate—at the outset—a complete set of alternative hypotheses. Focusing on the evidence that tends to confirm rather than to disconfirm the hypothesis. The Value of ACH

19. Advantages: Ensures that all the information and argumentation is evaluated. Helps avoid premature closure. Highlights the evidence that is most “discriminating” in making the case. Removes the relatively unimportant data from the equation. Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

20. 1) Identify the possible hypotheses to be considered. (use brainstorming techniques) 2) List significant evidence and arguments for and against each hypothesis. (include the absence of evidence) 3) Prepare a matrix to analyze the “diagnosticity” of the evidence. ACH: The Eight Step Process

21. 4) Delete evidence and arguments that have no diagnostic value.(that support all hypotheses) 5) Assess the relative likelihood of each hypothesis. (try to refute each hypothesis rather than confirm it) 6)Determine how sensitive the conclusion is to just a few critical pieces of evidence. (would the judgment still stand if the evidence were wrong?) ACH: The Eight Step Process

22. 7) Report conclusions; establish the relative likelihood of all hypotheses. 8) Identify milestones for further observation. (to validate that the most likely hypothesis is correct or to show that events are taking a different direction than anticipated) ACH: The Eight Step Process