---
id: '0003'
title: 'Disconfirmation search: agents must actively seek evidence against their hypothesis'
status: open
evidence: CONFIRMED
sources: 1
created: '2026-03-29'
---

## Claim

The CIA's Structured Analytic Techniques framework, the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) methodology, and research on devil's advocacy all converge on one principle: the most valuable evidence is disconfirming evidence. Schweiger et al. found that groups using devil's advocacy had decision quality ratings 33-34% higher than consensus groups. The U.S. military's Joint Doctrine Note states the goal is to 'temporarily dismantle consensus, set aside preconceptions.' For research.md, this means: before a finding can be marked CONFIRMED, the agent should be required to document at least one search for disconfirming evidence and record what it found (or didn't find). This could be a 'disconfirmation' field on findings — empty = gate blocks CONFIRMED status. This directly addresses the confirmation bias problem in AI agents, which Springer's systematic literature review identifies as a key challenge.

## Supporting Evidence

> **Evidence: [CONFIRMED]** — CIA Tradecraft Primer (cia.gov/resources/csi), Richards Heuer Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, RAND assessment of structured analytic techniques, Schweiger et al. longitudinal study on devil's advocacy (via LSA Global), Springer systematic literature review on bias in generative AI, retrieved 2026-03-29

## Caveats

None identified yet.
