Analysis of competing hypotheses The analysis of competing hypotheses ( ACH ) provides an unbiased methodology for evaluating multiple competing hypotheses for observed data . It was developed by Richards ( Dick ) J . Heuer , Jr . , a 45 - year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency , in the 1970s for use by the Agency . ACH is used by analysts in various fields who make judgments that entail a high risk of error in reasoning . It helps an analyst overcome , or at least minimize , some of the cognitive limitations that make prescient intelligence analysis so difficult to achieve . ACH was indeed a step forward in intelligence analysis methodology , but it was first described in relatively informal terms . Producing the best available information from uncertain data remains the goal of researchers , tool - builders , and analysts in industry , academia and government . Their domains include data mining , cognitive psychology and visualization , probability and statistics , etc . Abductive reasoning is an earlier concept with similarities to ACH . Process . Heuer outlines the ACH process in considerable depth in his book , " Psychology of Intelligence Analysis " . It consists of the following steps : Strengths . There are many benefits of doing an ACH matrix . It is auditable . It is widely believed to help overcome cognitive bias es , though there is a lack of strong empirical evidence to support this belief . Since the ACH requires the analyst to construct a matrix , the evidence and hypotheses can be backtracked . This allows the decisionmaker or other analysts to see the sequence of rules and data that led to the conclusion . Weaknesses . The process to create an ACH is time consuming . The ACH matrix can be problematic when analyzing a complex project . It can be cumbersome for an analyst to manage a large database with multiple pieces of evidence . Especially in intelligence , both governmental and business , analysts must always be aware that the opponent ( s ) is intelligent and may be generating information intended to deceive . Since deception often is the result of a cognitive trap , Elsaesser and Stech use state - based hierarchical plan recognition ( see abductive reasoning ) to generate causal explanations of observations . The resulting hypotheses are converted to a dynamic Bayesian network and value of information analysis is employed to isolate assumptions implicit in the evaluation of paths in , or conclusions of , particular hypotheses . As evidence in the form of observations of states or assumptions is observed , they can become the subject of separate validation . Should an assumption or necessary state be negated , hypotheses depending on it are rejected . This is a form of root cause analysis . Evidence also presents a problem if it is unreliable . The evidence used in the matrix is static and therefore it can be a snapshot in time . According to social constructivist critics , ACH also fails to stress sufficiently ( or to address as a method ) the problematic nature of the initial formation of the hypotheses used to create its grid . There is considerable evidence , for example , that in addition to any bureaucratic , psychological , or political biases that may affect hypothesis generation , there are also factors of culture and identity at work . These socially constructed factors may restrict or pre - screen which hypotheses end up being considered , and then reinforce confirmation bias in those selected . van Gelder has made the following criticisms : Structured analysis of competing hypotheses . The structured analysis of competing hypotheses offers analysts an improvement over the limitations of the original ACH . The SACH maximizes the possible hypotheses by allowing the analyst to split one hypothesis into two complex ones . For example , two tested hypotheses could be that Iraq has WMD or Iraq does not have WMD . If the evidence showed that it is more likely there are WMDs in Iraq then two new hypotheses could be formulated : WMD are in Baghdad or WMD are in Mosul . Or perhaps , the analyst may need to know what type of WMD Iraq has ; the new hypotheses could be that Iraq has biological WMD , Iraq has chemical WMD and Iraq has nuclear WMD . By giving the ACH structure , the analyst is able to give a nuanced estimate . Other approaches to formalism . One method , by Valtorta and colleagues uses probabilistic methods , adds Bayesian analysis to ACH . A generalization of this concept to a distributed community of analysts lead to the development of CACHE ( the Collaborative ACH Environment ) , which introduced the concept of a Bayes ( or Bayesian ) community . The work by Akram and Wang applies paradigms from graph theory . Other work focuses less on probabilistic methods and more on cognitive and visualization extensions to ACH , as discussed by Madsen and Hicks . DECIDE , discussed under automation is visualization - oriented . Work by Pope and Jøsang uses subjective logic , a formal mathematical methodology that explicitly deals with uncertainty . This methodology forms the basis of the Sheba technology that is used in Veriluma ' s intelligence assessment software . Automation . A few online and downloadable tools help automate the ACH process . These programs leave a visual trail of evidence and allow the analyst to weigh evidence . PARC ACH 2 . 0 was developed by Palo Alto Research Center ( PARC ) in collaboration with Richards J . Heuer , Jr . It is a standard ACH program that allows analysts to enter evidence and rate its credibility and relevance . Another useful program is the Decision Command software created by Dr . Willard Zangwill . SSS Research , Inc . is an analytic research firm that created DECIDE . DECIDE not only allows analysts to manipulate ACH , but it provides multiple visualization products . Competing Hypotheses is an open source ACH implementation .