CTI Data Collection: C4. Source Reliability and Grading
The ability to interpret source reliability grading/ information reliability grading (based on the UK 5x5x5 model)
Understanding Source Reliability
The UK 5x5x5 model is a framework used by the UK police and other agencies to evaluate the reliability of the information and its sources. It is a model that ensures intelligence assessments are based on credible information and enables making contextualised decisions based on various areas, such as criminal investigations, security assessments and risk management.
The 5x5x5 Model: A Three-Pronged Approach
This model uses three categories for evaluating intelligence, each with five possible gradings.
Source Evaluation
This category focuses on the credibility of the source from where the information originated. It is graded from A to E, based on the proven performance that the source has on past performance but also other factors.
A —> Always reliable: This grading signifies that the source provided accurate and trustworthy information in the past. We can mention sources such as technical surveillance or DNA evidence where reliability is certain, assuming the integrity of the process and alteration was introduced.
B —> Mostly Reliable: This grading signifies that the source of information has demonstrated reliability in most instances. We can mention sources such as police, witnesses or informants that have a history of accurate reporting.
C —> Sometime Reliable: This grading indicates that the sources have, in the past, provided reliable and unreliable information. Sources graded C should be treated with caution and double-checked. Such sources include media reports, social media content or informants with inconsistent reliability.
D —> Unreliable: This grading signifies that the source is known or suspected to provide false or misleading information, often with malicious intent.
E —> Untested Source: This grading signifies that the sources have no history of providing information. It is therefore impossible to assess the reliability of such sources. The information from E-graded sources like anonymous tips or first-time informants, should be handled with caution and double-check with other reliable sources before taking any action.
Information/Intelligence Evaluation
This category examines the information independent of the source. It assesses the likelihood of the truthfulness of the information based on how it was collected and corroborated.
1 —> Known to be True Without Reservation: This grading is assigned to the information directly witnessed by a reliable source, such as a law enforcement officer or derived from irrefutable technical means like DNA analysis.
2 —> Known Personally to the Source but Not to the Officer: This grading signifies that the information came from a secondary source and was not witnessed by the person reporting it. For example, we can mention witness statements or information from informants who received it from another person.
领英推荐
3 —> Not Known Personally to the Source but Corroborated by Other Information: This grading signifies that the secondhand obtained information is supported by another credible source. We can mention, for example, an anonymous tip alleging drug activity (initial source unknown) that is later corroborated by surveillance footage or community intelligence.
4 —> Cannot be Judged: This grading applies when there is insufficient information to assess the validity of the intelligence. It might be based on rumours, speculation, or single-source intelligence that cannot be corroborated.
5 —> Suspected to be False or Malicious: This grading indicates that the information is likely to be fabricated or intended to mislead and often originated from sources with known biases or hostile intentions.
Handling Sensitivity
This category is important for protecting sources, ongoing operations and sensitive information.
1:?Indicates the lowest level of sensitivity.?Information can be widely shared within the agency and with external partners.
2:?Suggest a moderate level of sensitivity.?Sharing may be restricted to certain individuals or departments within the agency.
3:?Indicates a higher level of sensitivity.?Information may be restricted to a smaller group of individuals or departments.
4:?Suggest a very high level of sensitivity.?Sharing may be limited to a select few individuals or departments within the agency,?and strict measures may be in place to protect the information.
5:?Indicates the highest level of sensitivity.?Information is classified as top secret and should only be accessed by authorized individuals under strict conditions.
After grading the sensitivity, it is crucial to take into account the following factors :
Dissemination Level: Information with a higher grade (4 or 5) might be restricted to internal use within an agency while the other information with a lower grade can be shared more broadly with other law enforcement or non-law enforcement partners.
Risk Assessment: The decision to disseminate intelligence should always involve a thorough risk assessment. We have to consider the following factors: potential harm to sources, compromise of an ongoing investigation and legal or ethical implications of sharing the information
Sanitisation: Before disseminating intelligence, particularly outside of law enforcement circles, it is crucial to sanitise the information. This involves removing any details that could identify sources and sensitive methods or compromise operational security.
Applying the 5x5x5 Model in Intelligence Analysis
While the 5x5x5 model provides a structured framework for grading sources in information reliability, it is important to have a nuanced approach to intelligence analysis.
Conclusion
By understanding and effectively applying the 5x5x5 model, we, analysts, can enhance the rigour of our assessments, ensuring decisions are based on credible, reliable and actionable intelligence.