Intelligence Community Directive 203¶
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2015). Intelligence Community Directive 203: Analytic Standards. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Cited by¶
4 citations across 4 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Confidence Annotation
- In intelligence analysis it is estimative language attached to judgments, with explicit definitions of what each band means about source reliability and analytic robustness.
This sourceDefines estimative (probability) language and source-reliability/confidence bands attached to analytic judgments.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
ICD 203 does require estimative language with defined probability bands and says confidence rests partly on source quantity and quality, but it defines no confidence bands in terms of source reliability.
“Analysts' confidence in an assessment or judgment may be based on the logic and evidentiary base that underpin it, including the quantity and quality of source material”
- In intelligence analysis it is estimative language attached to judgments, with explicit definitions of what each band means about source reliability and analytic robustness.
Mechanisms¶
- Caveated Decision Memo
- It segregates the basis into fact / assumption / estimate / unknown so no estimate can pose as a fact.
This sourceRequires analytic products to distinguish underlying information from assumptions and judgments so analytic conclusions are not presented as raw fact.
- It segregates the basis into fact / assumption / estimate / unknown so no estimate can pose as a fact.
- Evidence Sufficiency Rubric
- The discipline that keeps it honest is to test independence rather than count it, to publish the residual gap rather than bury it, and to refuse the rubric any question that is not actually evidentiary.
This sourceRequires analytic products to identify information gaps and explain how those gaps and other uncertainties affect judgments.
- The discipline that keeps it honest is to test independence rather than count it, to publish the residual gap rather than bury it, and to refuse the rubric any question that is not actually evidentiary.
- Move-Countermove Log
- The discipline is to record confidence explicitly, keep "observed" and "inferred" in separate registers, and let the honest gaps in attribution stand
This sourceRequires analytic products to state confidence and uncertainty explicitly and to preserve visible knowledge gaps rather than hiding them inside unstated assumptions.
- The discipline is to record confidence explicitly, keep "observed" and "inferred" in separate registers, and let the honest gaps in attribution stand
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 4 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:3699f89fecbe · see in the full table