The Methodology
Every OF-PRO product follows the same five-step process. No exceptions, no shortcuts. If a finding cannot be sourced, it is not reported — it is flagged as a collection gap.
Five-Step Process
Collect
Systematic, structured collection from primary sources (registries, court records, sanctions databases), secondary sources (news archives, professional networks), and open-source intelligence. Collection scope is defined before any search begins — preventing confirmation bias from shaping what is looked for.
Preserve
Every source is documented at the moment of access: URL, date, access method, and initial reliability assessment. Screenshots are taken of time-sensitive sources. The chain of custody for every finding is complete before analysis begins.
Verify
No finding is treated as reliable unless independently confirmed by a minimum of two unrelated sources. Conflicting source data is reported as such — not resolved by assumption. Source reliability is rated on the NATO Admiralty scale before each finding is accepted into the analytical layer.
Review
All findings, confidence assessments and analytical judgements are reviewed by a second analyst before drafting begins. The reviewer has not seen the collection phase — they assess only the findings and the evidence behind them. Disagreements are resolved explicitly, not silently.
Deliver
The finished product opens with a BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): one paragraph, one verdict, one recommended action. Supporting analysis follows in full, with sourcing, confidence ratings and identified gaps. The client receives intelligence, not a list of facts.
See the methodology in context: Business Intelligence services · High-Risk Operations services · Download sample report
NATO Admiralty Source Rating
Every source and every finding in an OF-PRO product carries a two-character rating: source reliability (A–F) and information accuracy (1–6). This is the same system used in professional military and law enforcement intelligence production.
| Code | Source Reliability | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| A | Completely reliable | No doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness and competence. History of complete reliability. |
| B | Usually reliable | Minor doubt. History of valid information in most cases. |
| C | Fairly reliable | Doubtful in the past. Provided valid information about half the time. |
| D | Not usually reliable | Significant doubt. Provided valid information occasionally. |
| E | Unreliable | Lacking authenticity, trustworthiness or competence. History of invalid information. |
| F | Cannot be judged | No basis for evaluating reliability. |
| Code | Information Accuracy | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources. Logical. Consistent with other information. |
| 2 | Probably true | Not confirmed. Logical. Consistent with other information. |
| 3 | Possibly true | Not confirmed. Reasonably logical. Agrees with some other information. |
| 4 | Doubtful | Not confirmed. Not logical. Contradicts other information. |
| 5 | Improbable | Not confirmed. Not logical. Contradicts other information. |
| 6 | Cannot be judged | No basis for evaluating accuracy. |
ICD-203 Estimative Language
Analytical judgements use standardised probability language per ICD-203 (Intelligence Community Directive 203). This eliminates ambiguity: when a report says "almost certainly", it means a specific probability range.
| Term | Probability |
|---|---|
| Almost certainly | 93–99% |
| Highly likely | 80–93% |
| Likely | 55–80% |
| Roughly even chance | 45–55% |
| Unlikely | 20–45% |
| Highly unlikely | 7–20% |
| Remote | 1–7% |
See the methodology applied. Every OF-PRO engagement uses this five-step process. Source ratings and confidence levels appear on every finding in the finished product.