Team A/Team B
A SAT in which two separate teams independently analyze the same intelligence problem from opposing assumptions or frameworks, then compare results.
Purpose
Forces explicit articulation of competing analytical frameworks. Useful when there is genuine disagreement about fundamental premises that cannot be resolved by examining evidence alone.
Relationship to Other Techniques
- More resource-intensive than Devil’s advocacy (requires two full teams)
- Produces explicit debate between competing analytical lines rather than a single advocate constructing a contrary case
Biases Primarily Controlled
| Bias | How this technique counters it |
|---|---|
| Groupthink | Two fully independent teams cannot contaminate each other with social consensus pressure |
| Motivated Reasoning | The two teams have different institutional motivations; at least one team has a different motivational direction |
| Confirmation Bias | Structural separation ensures one team cannot suppress the other’s disconfirming analysis |
Note
Coverage in CIA Tradecraft Primer (2009) is summary-level (p. 19). Detailed methodological description requires additional sources. Confidence: medium pending richer source.
Sources
- CIA Tradecraft Primer (2009) (p. 19)