RISR, no. 21/2019
246 INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY AND INTERDISCIPLINARITY
significance of these errors in their studies. However, intelligence analysts do not have this luxury. Thus they are confronted by these two simultaneous pressures that require them to minimize both types of error simultaneously. Therefore, the calibration process of intelligence assessments is far more demanding than scientific calibration, and the likelihood of mistakes is higher (Goldbach, 2012). It calls for research design tools that are related to both errors – the α and the β. Secrets, puzzles, and mysteries, and Structured Analytic Techniques In intelligence, case studies will differ in complexity. The tools that will be presented in this article are meant for the more complex ones, that Treverton called puzzles and mysteries (Treverton, 2009). A problem with data in those complex case studies is that the noise can obscure the signal – including the issue of overfitting (Silver, 2012). The more complex a problem is, the less favorable will be the relationship between the data in terms of noise and signal (Menkveld, 2018). To reduce the change of biases in such situations – as for puzzles and mysteries – the analyst has to rely on tooling and multiple Structured Analytic Techniques, or SAT’s (Moore, 2011. Menkveld, 2018). But how do you arrange your SAT’s to assess as accurate as possible (to reduce the value of the α), and at the same time not to miss a threat (to reduce the value of the β)? First, it is dealt with the tooling to reduce the value of the β (Rumsfeld Matrix), and then the focus is on the overall research design in terms of logic (Standard Logic Schedule).