Methodology

EXOPOLOSI applies established intelligence community analytical frameworks to exopolitical research. This page documents our methodology in full so that readers can evaluate our work and contributors can produce assessments that meet our standards.

Confidence Levels

Every key judgment carries a confidence level. These are not expressions of opinion — they reflect a structured evaluation of evidence quality and analytical agreement.

Admiralty (NATO) Source Grading System

We evaluate sources along two independent dimensions: source reliability and information credibility. These are combined into a two-character grade (e.g., B2).

Source Reliability

Information Credibility

Example usage: A claim graded B2 comes from a usually reliable source and the information itself is probably true but not independently confirmed. A claim graded D5 comes from a source that is not usually reliable and the information is improbable.

Witness and Evidence Probability (WEP) Scale

For cases involving witness testimony and physical evidence, we use an expanded evaluation framework:

Estimative Language

We follow IC conventions for expressing probability:

Rules for usage:

• Always use “we assess,” “we judge,” or “we estimate” — never “I think” or “I believe”
• Never express absolute certainty: even high-confidence judgments acknowledge the possibility of being wrong
• Always pair estimative language with a confidence level: “We assess with moderate confidence that…”

Essay Structure Guide

Every EXOPOLOSI assessment follows a standardized structure designed for clarity and analytical rigor. This section documents each required component.

1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The opening section states the core conclusion immediately. A BLUF should:

• State the primary finding or assessment in 2-4 sentences
• Include the confidence level
• Reference the basis for the judgment (e.g., “based on analysis of three independent sources…”)
• Allow a reader to understand the key takeaway without reading further

Use the bluf shortcode:

{% bluf() %}
We assess with **moderate confidence** that [conclusion]. This judgment is based on [evidence basis]. [Key qualification or caveat].
{% end %}

2. Background

Provides the context a reader needs to understand the analysis. Should be factual and descriptive, not analytical. Cite sources with Admiralty grades.

3. Source Evaluation

Explicitly grade key sources using the Admiralty system. Use the source_grade shortcode for inline grades:

{% source_grade(grade="B2") %}

4. Analysis

The core analytical section. Use callout shortcodes to highlight important elements:

• key_finding — for significant analytical conclusions (blue border)
• assessment — for formal assessments with confidence levels (green border)
• caution — for important caveats or limitations (amber border)
• unverified — for claims that cannot be verified (red border)
• methodology_note — for methodological explanations (gray border)

Use the confidence_badge shortcode for inline confidence markers:

{%/* confidence_badge(level="High") */%}

5. Alternative Hypotheses

Required for every assessment. Consider a minimum of three competing explanations:

• State each hypothesis clearly
• Evaluate the evidence for and against each
• Assess relative plausibility
• Explain why the primary assessment is favored

6. Forecast

When applicable, provide probabilistic outcomes in table format:

7. Key Judgments

A numbered summary list of all key findings and assessments made in the document. Each item should include its confidence level. This section allows readers who have read the BLUF to quickly scan all subordinate judgments.

Sidenotes

Use sidenotes for supplementary information that would disrupt the main text flow:

{%/* sidenote(id="1") */%}
Supplementary context that enriches but is not essential to the main argument.
{% end %}

On wide screens, sidenotes appear in the margin. On mobile, they are expandable inline elements.