Exercise 4: ACH/Inconsistencies Finder Structured Analytic Technique

Case: In recent years, Knightopia has been in a hostile ceasefire with Gatorville; however, their great power competition continues even if shots are not (currently) being fired. The Knightopian intelligence agencies have been consistently deploying spies into Gatorville, but have struggled in recent months with significant setbacks. Specifically, the Knightopian spies identities continue to be compromised, often leading to their arrest or disappearance withing Gatorville.

Once arrested, it is suspected that the spies are subject to harsh interrogation methods; it is unclear yet whether that includes torture. Twenty years ago, there was photographic evidence that Gatorville did use intensive waterboarding techniques, though that evidence has not been corroborated by Knightopian intelligence since. On at least two occasions, the Knightopian spies were known to have used common Knightopian references (like calling a Sprite a pop, whereas Gatorvillians call it a soda) while in the presence of their Gatorvillian targets, but these instances were rare and it was not confirmed that the Gatorvillians noticed. One Knightopian spy tried to pour a lethal poison into the Sprite of a significant Gatorvillian target, but was captured on restaurant security cameras and subsequently arrested (and disappeared).

On some occasions, when the Knightopian spies would try to contact their headquarters, the communications by phone and internet were fuzzy and/or hard to understandthough, Gatorville experiences a lot of rain that often disrupts some of the communication lines. At other times the spies have left coded letters with Knightopian-friendly contacts inside of Gatorville, which they then sent to Knightopian intelligence headquarters (though in recent weeks the Knightopian postal service has been particularly slow at delivering them).

Using the information provided in the case study above, complete the following steps of the ACH/Inconsistencies Finder SAT:

List what you consider importance pieces of evidence in the provided rows. Note that it is up to you to determine how many rows of evidence must be entered for the assessment to be considered complete. The chart continues onto the next page if you determine you need additional rows.

In each matrix cell, indicate whether you think a piece of evidence is consistent (+), neutral (|), or inconsistent (-) with the paired hypothesis.

Consider the consistencies/inconsistencies demonstrated within your ACH/Inconsistencies Finder matrix. Are there one or more hypotheses you think are most viable? Why?