Protocol
Build an evidence-by-hypothesis matrix
Put the same evidence against every hypothesis.
When it fits
- Several explanations are plausible and discussion keeps counting supporting anecdotes.
When to avoid it
- Cell ratings are judgments. Document ambiguous evidence and do not convert the matrix into fake precision.
Why it matters
Create a matrix with evidence rows and competing hypotheses as columns. For each cell, mark whether the evidence is expected, inconsistent, neutral or unknown under that hypothesis. Focus on contradictions and information quality rather than a simple vote of supporting facts.
Steps
- The matrix exposes at least one piece of evidence that treats hypotheses differently.
An example
An error appears only after a specific transport. That is inconsistent with a persistent master-data defect but expected under a transport-dependent configuration hypothesis.
Check your result
The matrix exposes at least one piece of evidence that treats hypotheses differently.
Keep this limit in mind
- Cell ratings are judgments. Document ambiguous evidence and do not convert the matrix into fake precision.
Connected ideas
Useful withSearch for evidence that can separate the explanations
Evidence and sources
Analysis of Competing Hypotheses compares multiple explanations against evidence and pays particular attention to inconsistent or discriminating evidence.
Matrix judgments remain subjective and depend on the quality and completeness of evidence and hypotheses.
A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis · Diagnostic Techniques: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses