Stratfor Email #14: [alpha] Insight processing reminder

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

[alpha] Insight processing reminder

Email-ID        282635

Date    2011-08-11 23:48:03

From    [email protected]

To      [email protected]

List-Name       [email protected]

Anyone sending insight through to the list needs to remember the new

coding we have scoring everything on an A-F scale. I am pasting the

directions again below. Pay particular attention to the directions under

item credibility.

 

Also, Mikey made a good point the other day. Often we will task a source

asking for feedback on a particular OS piece. When we do that please also

include the piece being referenced so that it completes the insight.

Sometimes we don't know what the source is referencing, making it

confusing.

 

Finally, where possible its also a good idea to include the original

(scrub them where needed) questions for the same reason mentioned above on

the OS pieces. Where that is not possible and where necessary, please

give a general idea on the tasking to better understand the sources

references. Also, when you include the (scrubbed) questions - and again,

I know that's not always appropriate - it helps others trying to learn the

sourcing and insight process to learn how we task sources.

 

SOURCE: code

ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a

publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical industry/source on

the ground, etc

SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details of the

source for our internal consumption so we can better understand the

source's background and ability to make the assessments in the insight.

PUBLICATION: Yes or no. If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will

publish it, but only that we can publish it.

SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F. A being the best and F being the worst. This

grades the source overall - access to information, timeliness,

availability, etc. In short, how good is this source?

ITEM CREDIBILITY: A-F. A = we can take this info to the bank; B = Good

insight but maybe not entirely precise; C = Insight is only partially

true; D = There may be some interest in the insight, but it is mostly

false or just pure speculation; F = Likely to be disinformation.

SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is "none" but it may be something like, "if

you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in

thepublication" or any other special notes

SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and

communicate with the source

 

Remember that you are not limited to only putting down the letter score

and are encouraged to give insight into WHY you are picking that score. I

know we are often in a hurry, but this is very helpful for everyone

understanding biases, uniqueness and other factors that make the insight

pertinent (or not).

 

If there are any questions, please ask.

 

Jen

 

--

Jennifer Richmond

STRATFOR

China Director

Director of International Projects

(512) 422-9335

www.stratfor.com