Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH)

CIA methodology (Heuer, 1999). For each target, we test two competing hypotheses: H_benign (innocent explanation survives) vs H_incrim (incriminating evidence survives). Evidence weight and contradiction scores complete the matrix.

Hb
H_benign (Benign Survival)
Can an innocent explanation survive scrutiny? 10 = no credible benign hypothesis remains.
Hi
H_incrim (Incriminating Survival)
How many incriminating hypotheses survive scrutiny? 10 = multiple confirmed and corroborated.
Ev
Evidence (Volume & Weight)
Volume and probative weight of documentary evidence. 10 = overwhelming documentation across multiple sources.
Cx
Contradiction (Self-Contradiction)
Self-contradictions in target's own statements. 10 = caught lying under oath or provably false public statements.

ACH vs CARVER: Complementary Lenses

Two frameworks, different questions. CARVER asks "how targetable is this person?" ACH asks "how guilty is this person?" A high-CARVER, low-ACH score means a visible target without strong evidence. A low-CARVER, high-ACH score means damning evidence on someone hard to reach.

ACH (This Page)

Epistemic framework. Evaluates EVIDENCE quality. Forces hypothesis elimination. Asks: "Can innocence survive the documents?" Designed to reduce confirmation bias. Best for: prosecutors, journalists, oversight committees.

CARVER (Targeting)

Operational framework. Evaluates TARGET viability. Scores criticality, accessibility, vulnerability. Asks: "If we investigate, what is the yield?" Designed for resource allocation. Best for: investigators, enforcement agencies.