Source Reliability and Informatin Credibility - The Muslim Brotherhood Report

The Muslim Brotherhood report has over 500 footnotes to allow readers to track down the original material used in the assessment. The author has testified in the Federal Court of Canada as to the reliability of intelligence as evidence.

The sources are reliable and come mainly from:

1.  Court documents

2.  Primary source documents

3.  Main stream media, but only those reports with named sources/events

4.  Limited Social media – but first order only, no secondary or tertiary and no reliance on unprovable statements

5.  “IkhwanWeb” – This is the official English language website of the Muslim Brotherhood

At no point in this report was there any single data point extrapolation analysis used for issues of policy, strategy and goals.  The analysis on these issues uses a variety of primary sources which are well documented over time (1930s to 2014) and geographic space (Egypt, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, USA etc).

A number of different methodologies exist to assist for testing test source reliability and information credibility.  Among the methods are the A/F-1/6 method (The Admiralty System), the Brei Method and the Schum method.

What often gets overlooked is that process in determining whether or not to use information should occur in two parts.  All too often, it will be noted that the source is “reliable.”  But it needs to be determined if the information is credible as well.  The source may be reliable, or at least trying to be honest and forthright, but this does not mean the information is credible.

Therefore, a two part test needs to be in the back of your mind at all times.  One approach to this, formerly known as the Admiralty system is as follows:

SOURCE

RELIABILITY

Source Rating Scale	Source Reliability Rating	History of Reliability	Source Authenticity / Bona Fides	Source Objectivity	Source Access to Info	Source NOT Vulnerable to Manipulation	Meets # of Criteria
A	Reliable	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	All 5
B	Usually reliable	Yes	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	History, plus 3
C	Fairly reliable	Yes	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	History, plus 2
D	Not usually	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	2 of 5
E	Unreliable	No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	NA
F	Cannot be judged	No basis exists for evaluating the reliability of the source

INFORMATION  CREDIBILITY
Information Rating Scale	Information Accuracy Rating	In-dependant Verifiable Means	Source Subject Competency	Logical	Practical and Plausible	Consistent	Meets # of Criteria
1	Confirmed	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	All 5
2	Probably True	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
3	Possibly True	No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	3
4	Doubtfully True	No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	2
5	Improbable	No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	No	0 or 1
6	Cannot be judged	No basis exists for evaluating the validity of the information