What technique is recommended when analysts disagree about analysis results?

When analysts disagree about analysis results, determining if any assumptions have been made that vary between the analyses is a crucial technique. This approach allows participants to identify the root of disagreement, which often stems from differing assumptions that underlie their analyses. Assumptions shape the framework through which data is interpreted and can greatly influence the outcomes of risk assessments.

By systematically examining and comparing the assumptions each analyst used, the team can uncover any discrepancies that may have led to conflicting conclusions. This can lead to a more nuanced understanding of the scenario and help in aligning perspectives towards a common interpretation. Once the uncertainties stemming from assumptions are clarified, it may be possible to reconcile differences or at least understand the rationale behind each analyst's viewpoint, leading to a more trustworthy and collaborative analysis.

Engaging in this detailed examination can enhance the overall quality of the analysis, ensuring that the decision-making process is based on a well-rounded understanding of the various elements at play. Other techniques might not directly address the underlying reasons for the disagreement, making this approach particularly effective.