How do you evaluate whether information is reliable?

You evaluate information reliability by analyzing the source's access (how close were they to what they're describing), motivation (what do they gain from telling you this), and track record (have they been accurate before). This three-part source analysis method is used by CIA officers to determine whether intelligence is trustworthy.

What is source analysis in intelligence?

Source analysis is an intelligence method for determining whether information is reliable by evaluating the source rather than the information itself. Instead of asking 'is this true?' you ask 'who is telling me this, what do they want, and how close were they to what they're describing?' The three pillars are access, motivation, and track record.

How can I tell if someone is lying in a negotiation?

Apply source analysis: evaluate their access (do they actually have firsthand knowledge of what they're claiming), their motivation (what do they gain from you believing them), and their track record (have their past claims been verified). If access is questionable, motivation is high, and track record is unverified, treat the information with skepticism.

How do CIA officers assess the credibility of sources?

CIA officers assess source credibility through three dimensions: access (proximity to the information — firsthand is more reliable than secondhand), motivation (what the source wants and how that shapes their reporting), and track record (whether past reporting has been accurate and verified). Each dimension is evaluated independently, and the combination determines overall reliability.

Source Analysis: A Spy's Information Evaluation Framework

What Is Source Analysis?

Source Analysis is a method for determining whether the information you're receiving is reliable by evaluating the source's access, motivation, and track record. Instead of asking 'is this true?' you ask 'who is telling me this, what do they want, and how close were they to what they're describing?'

How It Works

Every piece of information comes from a source. The source has their own motivations — and those motivations shape what they tell you and how they tell it.

Three questions determine source reliability. First: Access. How close was the source to what they're describing? Firsthand knowledge is more reliable than secondhand, which is more reliable than thirdhand. Each remove introduces distortion. Second: Motivation. What does the source want? Are they trying to help you, hurt you, impress you, or manipulate you? The motivation shapes the message. Third: Track record. Has this source been reliable before? Past accuracy is the best predictor of future accuracy.

The same analytical method a CIA officer uses on foreign intelligence sources applies to business partners, news coverage, colleagues, and advisors. Everyone is a source. Every source has motivations.

Example From the Field

The Iraq WMD intelligence failure is the defining cautionary tale. Intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs came from sources like Curveball — a source whose access was questionable, whose motivations were suspect, and whose track record was unverified. The data was accepted without adequate source analysis, and it led to catastrophic decisions.

In A Spy's Guide to Strategy, Braddock recruits a source who claims direct access to sensitive documents. At their third meeting, the source produces a torn scrap of paper — not an original document, but information relayed through a friend. Source analysis: the source's access was more limited than claimed. Braddock continues the relationship, testing hypotheses over several meetings. When the source is finally brought to the US for deeper vetting, the truth emerges: he had told 23 people about his CIA relationship — not the zero he'd claimed. The number climbed during the interview. First 6. Then 18. Then 23. Braddock had assumed the source's motivation was to help fight terrorism. The lies revealed a different endgame entirely. All three pillars of source analysis failed: access was indirect, motivation was misread, and the track record of secrecy was fabricated. The lesson: verify all three before you trust.

How to Apply It

When someone gives you information, pause before accepting it. Ask: How does this person know what they're telling me? Were they there, or did they hear it from someone who was?
Identify the source's motivation. What do they gain from telling you this? What do they gain from you believing it? If you can't identify the motivation, that itself is important data.
Check the track record. Has this person been accurate before? Have their predictions come true? Have their descriptions of events been verified by other sources?
Look for corroboration. Can you verify the information through an independent source? The more important the decision, the more important independent verification becomes.
Separate the information from the source. Good sources can be wrong. Bad sources can accidentally be right. Evaluate both independently.

Related Frameworks

About the Author

John Braddock was a case officer at the CIA. He developed, recruited, and handled sources on weapons proliferation, counter-terrorism, and political-military issues.

Source Analysis is a core method in A Spy's Guide to Thinking.

Apply these frameworks to your specific situation with The Operative — a strategic analysis service built on Braddock's CIA frameworks.