emsenn

SKILL

4 min read

Write Intelligence Assessment

What you will be able to do

  • Write intelligence assessments that distinguish between what is known, what is assessed, and what is assumed.
  • Use estimative language precisely: “likely” (>70%), “probable” (55-70%), “possible” (25-55%), “unlikely” (<25%).
  • Structure assessments around competing hypotheses rather than a single narrative, identifying what evidence supports and undermines each hypothesis.
  • Evaluate source reliability using the discipline’s frameworks — distinguishing source access from source credibility, identifying incentive structures that shape reporting.
  • Flag analytic vulnerabilities: mirror-imaging, consistency-seeking, anchoring, and premature closure.
  • Write in Plain Technical General American English, maintaining the vault’s scholarly but operationally grounded prose style.

Prerequisites

Reference documents

Assessment structure

1. Analytic statement

Begin with what is being assessed and the bottom-line assessment, with explicit confidence level. Example: “We assess with moderate confidence that Iran’s Strait of Hormuz closure is intended as economic leverage rather than permanent denial of the waterway.” State the confidence level and explain what drives it (volume of evidence, quality of sources, degree of analytic agreement).

2. Evidence base

Present the evidence organized by collection discipline. For each piece of evidence, note:

  • The collection discipline that produced it (HUMINT, SIGINT, IMINT, OSINT, etc.)
  • The source’s reliability and access (using the admiralty system framework where applicable)
  • Whether the evidence supports, undermines, or is ambiguous with respect to the primary hypothesis

3. Alternative hypotheses

Present at least two alternative explanations for the observed indicators. For each alternative:

  • State the hypothesis clearly
  • Identify which evidence supports it
  • Explain why it is considered less likely than the primary assessment (or note if it cannot be confidently distinguished)
  • Identify what additional collection would resolve the ambiguity

4. Analytic confidence and vulnerabilities

Explicitly address:

  • Mirror-imaging risks — where the assessment projects the analyst’s own strategic logic onto the adversary
  • Gaps — what information is missing and how its absence affects the assessment
  • Assumptions — what the assessment takes for granted and what would happen if those assumptions proved wrong
  • Key uncertainties — what the assessment is least confident about and why

5. Implications and collection requirements

Conclude with:

  • What the assessment means for decision-makers
  • What additional collection would improve the assessment
  • What indicators to monitor going forward (feeding back into the I&W process)

Conventions specific to intelligence assessments

Epistemic discipline

Never conflate evidence with assessment. “Satellite imagery shows three IRGC fast attack craft repositioned to Bandar Abbas” is evidence. “Iran is preparing to enforce the Hormuz closure with naval assets” is assessment. Keep them separate and make the inferential step explicit.

Adversary perspective

For every assessment of adversary intent, attempt to articulate the adversary’s perspective in terms the adversary would recognize — not in terms that make the adversary’s actions legible to the analyst’s own strategic culture. This is the discipline’s primary defense against mirror-imaging.

Temporal markers

Intelligence assessments are perishable. Date them explicitly and note the information cutoff. Flag which elements are most likely to change and on what timeline.

Scope

This skill covers writing intelligence assessments for this vault’s analyses section. It does not cover:

  • General vault writing style (covered by the Style Guide)
  • The intelligence discipline’s theoretical frameworks (covered by concepts and terms)
  • Research and evidence gathering (covered by research-intelligence-topic)
  • Lesson or curriculum design about intelligence (covered by writing-curricula)

Verification

You have this skill if you can: (1) write an assessment that uses estimative language correctly and consistently, (2) present competing hypotheses with evidence for and against each, (3) identify your own mirror-imaging risks in the assessment, and (4) distinguish clearly between evidence, assessment, and assumption throughout.

Graph View

Backlinks