PROJECT // 03

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) Workbench

Structured evidence evaluation framework demonstrating analytical rigor, hypothesis comparison, assumptions management, and confidence assessment using fictional training scenarios.

INTELLIGENCE ANALYSISDECISION SUPPORTANALYTICS

ANALYTIC WORKSPACE // CASE 001

FICTIONAL TRAINING SCENARIO

SYSTEM ANOMALY

What best explains the observed system failure?

HYPOTHESES

Equipment Failure

Environmental Cause

Human Error

Combined Factors

CONSISTENCY MATRIX

EVIDENCE	Equipment	Environmental	Human	Combined	WEIGHT
					MEDIUM
					HIGH
					MEDIUM
					MEDIUM
					LOW
					HIGH
					MEDIUM

++ = Strongly Consistent | + = Consistent | 0 = Neutral | - = Inconsistent | -- = Strongly Inconsistent

INCONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT

Combined FactorsScore: 2

★ LEAST INCONSISTENT HYPOTHESIS

Environmental CauseScore: 3

Human ErrorScore: 9

Equipment FailureScore: 10

ACH emphasizes evidence that is inconsistent with a hypothesis rather than simply counting supporting evidence. The least inconsistent hypothesis has fewer contradictions based on current evidence.

ASSUMPTIONS //

Failure mechanism is singular and identifiable

All relevant evidence has been collected

Operator testimony is reliable and complete

INFORMATION GAPS //

Confirmation of component internal state before failure

Independent environmental measurement verification

Operator timeline clarification and corroboration

ASSESSMENT CONFIDENCE

Confidence should reflect evidence quality, corroboration, gaps, assumptions, and alternative explanations.

CONTROLS

DESIGNED + BUILT BY BENJAMIN H. SHIMER

← ALL PROJECTS