Book
FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations
by Headquarters, Department of the Army (SUA) · 2006 · 1 reading card · public domain
1 card
FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations · 2006
A source's reputation does not confirm the information, and a lack of track record does not refute it.
Every report gets two grades, not one. The letter, from A to F, says how reliable the source is, judged on what it has reported before: A reliable, B usually reliable, C fairly reliable, D not usually reliable, E unreliable, and F cannot be judged, for a source with no track record. The figure, from 1 to 6, says how credible the information in this particular report is: 1 confirmed by other independent sources, 2 probably true, 3 possibly true, 4 doubtfully true, 5 improbable, and 6 cannot be judged. The grid is known as the Admiralty code, after its British origin, and the same logic of two separate grades appears in NATO intelligence doctrine. In practice: grade the source on what it has delivered so far, then the information on what it says now — internal logic, corroboration, consistency with everything else. The grades are kept apart because they can diverge: a B source can send a 5 report, and a new F source can bring something already confirmed. The method pays wherever many heterogeneous sources flow in, open sources included. The traps: reading F as liar — the manual says explicitly it only means no track record — and letting the source's reputation contaminate the grade of the information.
“An “F” rating does not necessarily mean that the source cannot be trusted, but that there is no reporting history and therefore no basis for making a determination.”