C001 — Assessment¶


Research	R0052 — Methodology Claims
Run	2026-03-31
Claim	C001

BLUF¶

ICD 203 defines exactly nine Analytic Tradecraft Standards that govern how intelligence analysts produce assessments. The claim is accurate in both the count and the governing function.

Probability¶

Rating: Almost certain (95-99%)

Confidence in assessment: High

Confidence rationale: The ICD 203 document is publicly available and widely cited. Multiple independent sources enumerate the nine standards consistently. No contradictory evidence was found.

Reasoning Chain¶

The official ICD 203 document from the DNI states that all IC analytic products must "implement and exhibit" nine Analytic Tradecraft Standards. [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]
Eric Ford's analysis of ICD 203 for private-sector application independently lists all nine standards by name: (1) Source Quality & Credibility, (2) Uncertainty Expression, (3) Intelligence vs. Analysis Distinction, (4) Alternative Analysis, (5) Consumer Relevance, (6) Clear Argumentation, (7) Consistency Tracking, (8) Accurate Assessments, (9) Visual Incorporation. [SRC02-E01, Medium reliability, High relevance]
The Army Military Review confirms the nine tradecraft standards and discusses their application for Army commanders. [SRC03-E01, Medium-High reliability, High relevance]
JUDGMENT: All three independent sources agree on both the count (nine) and the governing function. No source suggests a different number or non-governing status.

Evidence Base Summary¶

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance	Key Finding
SRC01	ICD 203 official document	High	High	Mandates nine standards for all IC products
SRC02	Ford — private sector analysis	Medium	High	Lists all nine standards by name
SRC03	Kwoun — Army Military Review	Medium-High	High	Confirms nine standards for military application

Collection Synthesis¶

Dimension	Assessment
Evidence quality	Robust — primary government source plus multiple secondary sources
Source agreement	High — all sources agree on nine standards
Source independence	High — government primary source, private sector analysis, military publication
Outliers	None identified

Detail¶

The evidence consistently confirms nine Analytic Tradecraft Standards in ICD 203. The standards were established in 2007 and revised in 2015. All sources agree on both the count and the governing nature of these standards. The standards are: (1) Source Quality & Credibility, (2) Uncertainty Expression, (3) Intelligence vs. Analysis Distinction, (4) Alternative Analysis, (5) Consumer Relevance, (6) Clear Argumentation, (7) Consistency Tracking, (8) Accurate Assessments, and (9) Visual Incorporation.

Gaps¶

Missing Evidence	Impact on Assessment
Could not directly parse the ICD 203 PDF (403 error)	Low — secondary sources consistently enumerate the nine standards

Researcher Bias Check¶

Declared biases: The researcher tends to favor intelligence community frameworks as gold standards. This aligns with investigating a claim about ICD 203.

Influence assessment: Low risk. The claim is a factual count that can be verified against the published directive. The researcher's bias toward IC frameworks does not affect the ability to count standards in a document.

Cross-References¶

Entity	ID	File
Hypotheses	H1, H2, H3	`hypotheses/`
Sources	SRC01, SRC02, SRC03	`sources/`
ACH Matrix	—	ach-matrix.md
Self-Audit	—	self-audit.md