When analysts face uncertainty, or deal with incomplete information, they should always clearly state the assumptions that allow them to go beyond the hard evidence into matters that require estimation or interpretation. The military probably will continue supporting the government. Therefore, the government is unlikely to be seriously threatened by opposition forces over the next few years. He probably will continue to diffuse anti-regime pressures with a mix of carrots and sticks. Thus, a serious threat to regime stability is unlikely.
Linchpin assumptions are the most debatable and subject to error.
In general, both drivers and linchpins should be precisely stated and well defended. This means that each potentially important alternative outcome should provide an analysis of drivers and linchpins or plausible reversals of drivers and linchpins. As a rule, analysts use constructions that tie the outcome to the driver and linchpin assumptions, rather than make flat predictions. Notice the switch in focus from whether something will happen to how it would happen. In the above example, the analyst might rely on evidence of security force morale, lapses in salary or training, rivalries between elite, paramilitary security forces and regular forces, to justify the prediction that security forces getting out of control would be a factor.