Protocol
Write competing explanations before scoring the favorite
A hypothesis deserves competition before it deserves confidence.
When it fits
- One explanation arrived early and every new fact is being interpreted through it.
When to avoid it
- More hypotheses are not automatically better. Stop when additions become duplicates or implausible edge cases.
Why it matters
Generate several plausible explanations at the same level of abstraction before evaluating any of them. Include at least one explanation that would require a different action. Avoid straw alternatives that exist only to make the favorite look good.
Steps
- The alternatives could realistically explain the observations and would not all produce the same next action.
An example
Slow processing could come from data volume, a locking pattern or downstream throttling; each implies a different test.
Check your result
The alternatives could realistically explain the observations and would not all produce the same next action.
Keep this limit in mind
- More hypotheses are not automatically better. Stop when additions become duplicates or implausible edge cases.
Connected ideas
Use beforeBuild an evidence-by-hypothesis matrix
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