{
  "code": "ANAL-01",
  "slug": "competing-hypotheses-and-assessment",
  "title": "Competing Hypotheses and Assessment",
  "category": "Evidence & Analysis",
  "status": "Current",
  "version": "2.0.4-wip",
  "summary": "Analysis compares multiple explanations and records what evidence would discriminate among them.",
  "keywords": [
    "analysis",
    "hypotheses",
    "alternatives",
    "bias",
    "assessment",
    "indicators"
  ],
  "mission_phases": [
    "Plan",
    "Validate",
    "Deliver",
    "Debrief"
  ],
  "canonical": "https://iarpg.com/standard/competing-hypotheses-and-assessment",
  "json": "https://iarpg.com/records/competing-hypotheses-and-assessment.json",
  "requirements": [
    {
      "level": "MUST",
      "text": "Material assessments identify at least one plausible alternative explanation when evidence is incomplete."
    },
    {
      "level": "MUST",
      "text": "Each hypothesis list supporting, contradicting, and non-discriminating evidence."
    },
    {
      "level": "SHOULD",
      "text": "Collection planning prioritize evidence that can distinguish among leading hypotheses."
    },
    {
      "level": "MAY",
      "text": "Allow analysts to publish dissenting assessments with separate confidence and reasoning."
    }
  ],
  "research": [
    {
      "label": "Alliance leak threat assessment",
      "href": "/docs/report/counterintelligence-directive-alliance-leak-investigation#threat-assessment",
      "note": "Counterintelligence investigation with multiple suspects and evidence types."
    },
    {
      "label": "Investigation workflow",
      "href": "/docs/report/counterintelligence-directive-alliance-leak-investigation#investigative-workflow-and-timeline",
      "note": "Structured collection and analysis over time."
    }
  ],
  "related": [
    "intelligence-requirement",
    "provenance-confidence-and-corroboration",
    "counterintelligence-investigation"
  ],
  "release": "IARPG-OPS-2",
  "revised_utc": "2026-07-20T12:04:07Z",
  "purpose": "Keep observations, reports, interpretations, hypotheses, assessments, and decisions distinct and traceable.",
  "rationale": "A reviewable intelligence game requires uncertainty and contradiction to survive the user interface rather than being flattened into a single truth score.",
  "game_interaction": [
    "Create evidence node",
    "Link support or contradiction",
    "Compare hypotheses",
    "Publish assessment"
  ],
  "inputs": [
    "Observations",
    "Source reports",
    "Documents",
    "Sensor events"
  ],
  "outputs": [
    "Hypotheses",
    "Assessment",
    "Decision support",
    "Evidence packet"
  ],
  "state_transitions": [
    {
      "from": "not-applicable",
      "event": "record requirement evaluated",
      "to": "conforming-or-documented-exception"
    }
  ],
  "evidence_and_provenance": [
    "The implementation records the source, UTC event time, mission identifier, responsible role, and reason code for consequential state changes.",
    "Generated dialogue and player interpretation are not stored as authoritative facts without a separate verification event."
  ],
  "ui_requirements": [
    "Show the record code and requirement level at the point of use.",
    "Expose the reason for blocked, failed, escalated, or irreversible actions.",
    "Provide a direct link to the canonical standard and machine-readable record."
  ],
  "accessibility_requirements": [
    "Essential information is available without reliance on color, audio, motion, or a VR-only gesture.",
    "Keyboard, screen-reader, reduced-motion, seated-play, and high-contrast equivalents are documented where the interaction applies."
  ],
  "telemetry_events": [
    {
      "name": "standard.competing-hypotheses-and-assessment.evaluated",
      "required_fields": [
        "event_id",
        "timestamp_utc",
        "mission_id",
        "record_code",
        "result",
        "reason_code"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "abuse_and_exploit_cases": [
    "A participant attempts to omit required context so another role accepts a misleading task.",
    "A generated or user-authored statement is presented as server-authoritative without verification.",
    "A consequential state transition occurs without a durable reason code."
  ],
  "failure_behavior": "Fail closed for irreversible or settlement-bearing actions. Preserve the current state, show the missing requirement, and allow correction or documented exception review.",
  "recovery_behavior": "Restore from the last authoritative event, retain the rejected transition in the audit log, and require a new validated event before continuing.",
  "example_implementation": "A mission interface evaluates ANAL-01 before advancing the relevant state and writes the result to the local event log with a UTC timestamp and reason code.",
  "roles": [
    "Operative",
    "Handler",
    "Intelligence Analyst"
  ],
  "authority_types": [
    "Civil administration",
    "Military command",
    "Commercial intelligence service",
    "International verification body",
    "Scientific consortium",
    "Independent investigative network"
  ],
  "collection_disciplines": [],
  "interaction_types": [
    "Create evidence node",
    "Link support or contradiction",
    "Compare hypotheses"
  ],
  "evidence_requirement": "Reviewable provenance required",
  "conformance_level": "Level B — Playable",
  "implementation_maturity": "Published WIP",
  "related_examples": [
    "port-access-anomaly-investigation"
  ],
  "revision_history": [
    {
      "version": "1.0.0",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-19",
      "note": "Initial IARPG-OPS-1 publication."
    },
    {
      "version": "2.0.1-wip",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-19",
      "note": "Expanded for IARPG-OPS-2 workbench, simulation, evidence, accessibility, telemetry, and machine-readable publication."
    },
    {
      "version": "2.0.2-wip",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-19T16:42:07Z",
      "change": "Reviewed for operation-package lifecycle compatibility and local tool integration."
    },
    {
      "version": "2.0.3-wip",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-19T18:45:50Z",
      "note": "Reviewed for integrity-aware package verification, merge, multi-role replay, custody comparison, batch review, backup, publication preview, and release-promotion workflows."
    },
    {
      "version": "2.0.4-wip",
      "date_utc": "2026-07-20T12:04:07Z",
      "note": "Reviewed for canonicalization, round-trip portability, recovery, provenance, compatibility, accessibility, hosting evidence, and stable-promotion gates."
    }
  ]
}