You are on page 1of 2

RC(C) Evaluation System

Assessment form

Assessed item
Title A war gone badly wrong: The war on terror ten years on

Author Paul Rogers

Organisation/publication Oxford Research Group

Date published 11 September 2011 URL http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/middle_east/ war_gone_badly_wrong_war_terror_ten_years

Analyst
Name Chris Abbott

Role Executive Director Organisation Open Briefing

Assessment
Rating B2(H)

Notes Source known personally to the analyst (former colleague).

Date of assessment 11 September 2011

Code

Description

Criteria

Assessment

Reliability of source, R A Completely reliable Source always provides highly credible (1, 2) information There are no known occasions when source has proved to be wrong Source is judged by assessor as always (>80%) reliable Source usually provides credible (1, 2, 3) information Source has rarely proved to be wrong Source is judged by assessor as usually (60-80%) reliable Source often provides credible (1, 2, 3) information Source has occasionally proved to be wrong Source is judged by assessor as fairly (40-60%) reliable Source often provides improbable (4, 5) information Source has often proved to be wrong Source is judged by assessor as often (20-40%) unreliable Source usually provides improbable (4, 5) information There are numerous occasions when source has proved to be wrong Source is judged by assessor as always (<20%) unreliable Conflicting or inadequate information available X

Usually reliable

Fairly reliable

Not usually reliable

E F

Unreliable Reliability cannot be judged

Credibility of information, C 1 Confirmed by other source Information has been confirmed by at least one other highly reliable (A, B) source Information has not been refuted by any other reliable (A, B, C) sources Information is judged by assessor as highly likely (>80%) to be true Information has been confirmed by at least one other reliable (A, B, C) source Information has not been refuted by any other highly reliable (A, B) sources Information is judged by assessor as likely (60-80%) to be true Information has not been confirmed by any other reliable (A, B, C) sources Information has not been refuted by any other reliable (A, B, C) sources Information is judged by assessor as possibly (40-60%) true Information has not been confirmed by any other highly reliable sources (A, B) Information has been refuted by at least one other reliable (A, B, C) source Information is judged by assessor as unlikely (20-40%) to be true Information has not been confirmed by any other reliable sources (A, B, C) Information has been refuted by at least one other highly reliable (A, B) source Information is judged by assessor as highly unlikely (<20%) to be true Conflicting or inadequate information available X

Probably true

Possibly true

Doubtful

5 6

Improbable Truth cannot be judged

Confidence in assessment, (C) H M L High confidence Moderate confidence Low confidence Criteria for both reliability and credibility have been confidently met Assessor is highly confident (>80%) in the overall rating Criteria for either reliability or credibility have been confidently met Assessor is at least reasonably confident (40-60%) in the overall rating Criteria for neither reliability nor credibility have been confidently met Assessor is not confident (<20%) in the overall rating X