Skip to content

03-practical-guides.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
134 lines (96 loc) · 5.49 KB

03-practical-guides.md

File metadata and controls

134 lines (96 loc) · 5.49 KB
Raw

← Back to Prime | Library Index

Practical Guides & Research Toolkit

Source: "I want to generate a deep research report and practical breakdown" (Gemini analysis) Focus: Reusable research prompt, actionable technique guides, SAT workflow Reading Time: ~10 minutes | Audience: Practitioners, AI integrators | Prerequisites: None

Key Contribution

Provides a reusable prompt template for generating SAT analyses, plus concise actionable guides for the four most critical techniques and a complete SAT workflow checklist.

Reusable Deep Research Prompt Template

Role: You are a Senior Intelligence Methodology Consultant and Expert in
Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) for the US Intelligence Community.

Task: Conduct a deep-dive analysis and practical breakdown of [TARGET DOCUMENT/TOPIC].

Objectives:
1. Deconstruct the Framework: Explain how it fits into the broader Intelligence
   Cycle and how it satisfies ICD 203 (Analytic Standards).
2. Categorize & Analyze Techniques: Break down core categories. For the top 3-5
   most critical techniques, provide a detailed "How-To" guide including specific
   steps, required resources, and "watch-outs."
3. Practical Application: Create a "Practitioner's Checklist" for applying
   techniques to a modern, ambiguous problem.
4. Critical Assessment: Analyze limitations, addressing modern critiques
   (time cost, cognitive drag) and mitigations.

Output Format: Structured professional report with Executive Summary,
Methodology Framework, Technique Deep-Dives (Step-by-Step), and Critical Review.

Concise Technique Guides

ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses)

Best for: Complex problems where you suspect bias toward a specific conclusion

  1. Brainstorm Hypotheses — include "unlikely" ones ("target is bluffing," "third-party setup")
  2. List Evidence — facts, inferences, AND absence of evidence
  3. Create Matrix — hypotheses across top, evidence down side
  4. Diagnostics — "Is this evidence consistent with this hypothesis?"
    • Evidence consistent with ALL hypotheses = zero diagnostic value
  5. Conclude — eliminate hypotheses with too much inconsistent evidence

Key Assumptions Check (KAC)

Best for: Starting new projects; reviewing long-standing judgments

  1. Write down current analytic line
  2. List assumptions that must be true for that line to hold
  3. Challenge each: Is it solid (supported by fact)? Is it key (if wrong, does the analysis collapse)?
  4. Identify fault lines — shaky key assumptions require warning the decision-maker

Red Teaming

Best for: Understanding adversary mindset; avoiding mirror-imaging

  1. Form team of non-primary-expert analysts
  2. Adopt adversary persona — define THEIR goals, culture, fears, constraints (not yours)
  3. Develop attack plan from their perspective
  4. Present as adversary — first-person delivery to decision-maker

Pre-Mortem ("What If?" Variant)

Best for: Preventing failure in a plan or prediction

  1. Assume the plan has already failed ("It is 2028 and the project was a total disaster")
  2. Work backward — tell the story of how it happened
  3. Identify missed triggers and indicators
  4. Create monitoring plan to watch for those triggers now

SAT Workflow Checklist

Step 1: Issue Definition

Do not just answer the question asked. Ask "Why is this question being asked?" and paraphrase to ensure you aren't solving the wrong problem.

Step 2: Key Assumptions Check (15 min)

Before digging into data, list what you think you know.

Step 3: Gather & Sort (Quality of Information Check)

  • Source Reliability: Does the source have a history of truth?
  • Information Viability: Is the claim physically/logically possible?
  • Deception: Could this be a plant?

Step 4: Select Core Technique

Situation Technique
High uncertainty + high data ACH
Low data + high impact Scenario Generation
Strong consensus exists Devil's Advocacy (must challenge)

Step 5: Produce Output

  • State confidence level explicitly
  • Do NOT say "We believe..." — say "We assess with high confidence..."

ICD 203 Technique Mapping (Concise)

ICD 203 Standard Technique Solution
Objectivity ACH forces equal evaluation of all possibilities
Independent of political judgments KAC separates facts from analyst beliefs/pressures
Analysis of alternatives Scenario Generation + Red Teaming ensure multiple outcomes presented

Modern Critiques & Fixes

Limitation Fix
Time Tax (ACH too slow) "Rapid ACH" — top 3 hypotheses vs. top 5 evidence items only
Checklist Trap (mechanical compliance) Reward analysts who change their assessment after running a technique
False Precision (misleading quantification) Logic is superior to math in intelligence; acknowledge when assumptions underlying numbers are flawed

Related Documents

Document Relationship
02 — Tradecraft Primer Analysis Detailed practitioner guides for ACH, KAC, and Red Team
06 — Decision Matrix When to select each technique
09 — Core Techniques The essential 8 techniques prioritized for universal use
04 — Agile Rigor Update Modern HMT and Lean SAT approaches complementing this workflow