Combining Supporting & Contradictory Information

Thank you for your participation.

The Analyst's Assistant

As a participant in this game, you are taking the role as an assistant to an intelligence analyst. The analyst must rapidly develop an understanding of a new environment based on applicable observations. These observations are defined by two parameters: source reliability and information content. Source reliability is an abstract measure of the authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency of the observation source. Information content is an abstract measure of the logic and consistency of an observation.

In this game applicability is defined as a combination of source reliability and information content. Given those two measures, it will be your job to assign a score of applicability to an observation. The analyst has limited time to develop an understanding of the new environment, thus access to the most applicable observations first is crucial.

Finally, when you finish ranking an observation you will be given a new observation that is related to the observation you just examined. The new observation may be supporting or contradicting the original observation. Now you will have the additional task of considering how this new observation impacts the applicability of the original observation!

Applicability ratings are a combination of Source Reliability and Information content that you must rate on a fuzzy scale from Extremely Applicable (highest) to Not Applicable (lowest). The description of these ratings follows:

Evaluation of Source Reliability

Designator	Label	Explanation
A	Reliable	No doubt of authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency; has a history of complete reliability
B	Usually Reliable	Minor doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency; has a history of valid information most of the time
C	Fairly Reliable	Doubt of authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency but has provided valid information in the past
D	Not Usually Reliable	Significant Doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency but has provided valid information in the past
E	Unreliable	Lacking in authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency; history of invalid information

Evaluation of Information Content

Designator	Label	Explanation
1	Confirmed	Confirmed by other independent source; logical in itself; Consistent with other information on the subject
2	Probably True	Not Confirmed; logical in itself; consistent with other information on the subject
3	Possibly True	Not Confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; agrees with some other information on the subject
4	Doubtfully True	Not Confirmed; possible but not logical; no other information on the subject
5	Improbable	Not Confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicted by other information on the subject

Furthermore, during the game you will have to determine how subsequent related observations affect the original observation's applicability score. The possible relationships are described below:

Evaluation of Relationships

Relationship	Explanation
Totally Supports	The new information is completely similar to the premise.
Somewhat Supports	The new information supports a related premise.
Somewhat Contradicts	The new information supports an alternative premise.
Totally Contradicts	The new information is completely opposite to the premise.

After game completion, we will compare your answers to that of our expert with the possibility of earning a monetary bonuses. Before beginning the game begins you will be given a short demographic questionnaire. If you do not wish to provide the information you may withdraw from the game.

Click 'Next' to continue to the game instructions. Thank you!

Next

Instructions