Sourcing standards
Source reliability grading systems explained
Short answer
- UK police model
- Three source grades, five intelligence grades and two handling codes 1
- Europol source codes
- A, B, C and X 2
- Europol information codes
- 1 to 4 2
- Europol Regulation
- Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of 11 May 2016 2
Why grade the source and the information apart
A reliable source can pass on something they only heard. An unknown source can report something they saw. Grading the two separately shows which problem applies. Europol's information codes turn on whether the information is known personally to the source and whether it is corroborated 2. The UK police intelligence grades turn on the same two questions 1.
UK police: source, intelligence and handling grades
The College of Policing's guidance on the intelligence report sets three source gradings, five intelligence gradings and two handling codes 1.
| Grade | Meaning in the guidance |
|---|---|
| Reliable | The source is believed to be both competent and the information received is reliable in general 1 |
| Untested | The source has no track record or the information has not been substantiated. Consider corroboration first 1 |
| Not reliable | There are reasonable grounds to doubt the source. Corroboration should be sought before acting 1 |
| A | Known directly to the source 1 |
| B | Known indirectly to the source but corroborated 1 |
| C | Known indirectly to the source 1 |
| D | Not known, for example from an anonymous source 1 |
| E | Suspected to be false, with reasons recorded 1 |
| P | Lawful sharing permitted 1 |
| C (handling) | Lawful sharing permitted with conditions 1 |
Europol: the codes in Regulation (EU) 2016/794
The providing Member State makes the assessment as far as possible 2. If Europol concludes that an assessment needs correcting, it must inform the Member State and seek agreement, and it shall not change the assessment without that agreement 2.
| Code | Meaning in the Regulation |
|---|---|
| A | No doubt as to the authenticity, trustworthiness and competence of the source, or a source proved reliable in all instances 2 |
| B | A source which has in most instances proved to be reliable 2 |
| C | A source which has in most instances proved to be unreliable 2 |
| X | The reliability of the source cannot be assessed 2 |
| 1 | Information the accuracy of which is not in doubt 2 |
| 2 | Known personally to the source but not to the official passing it on 2 |
| 3 | Not known personally to the source but corroborated by information already recorded 2 |
| 4 | Not known personally to the source and cannot be corroborated 2 |
US intelligence: descriptors instead of grades
ICD 206 asks analysts to write a source descriptor, a brief narrative on factors that affect the quality or credibility of a single source, such as access, accuracy, age of information, motivation and possible bias 3. It strongly encourages a source summary statement saying which sources are meaningfully corroborative or conflicting 3.
ICD 203 makes describing the quality and credibility of underlying sources the first analytic tradecraft standard 4. It says products must not combine a confidence level and a degree of likelihood in the same sentence 4.
Lessons from official reviews
The US WMD Commission reported on 31 March 2005 that daily briefings left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources 5. In the UK, the government's March 2005 response to the Butler review said work was under way so that source descriptions in intelligence reports use standardised terminology and are consistent 6. Both findings point to the same need: record where each report came from, so that repeats are not counted as corroboration.
Common questions
What does a B grade mean in UK police intelligence?
Known indirectly to the source but corroborated 1.
What is the difference between Europol codes 2 and 3?
Code 2 is information known personally to the source. Code 3 is not known personally to the source but corroborated by information already recorded 2.
Does the US intelligence community use A to F letter grades?
ICD 206 and ICD 203 ask for source descriptors and summary statements, not letter grades 3,4.
Can Europol change a Member State's grading?
Not on its own. It must seek agreement and shall not change the assessment without it 2.
Rules and charges change. Check the official source linked on this page before you pay or travel. Spotted an error? Email hello@evidencefamily.com.
Sources
- College of Policing: Intelligence report (Authorised Professional Practice, Intelligence management)
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence: ICD 206, Sourcing Requirements for Disseminated Analytic Products (copy hosted by the Federation of American Scientists)
- Office of the Director of National Intelligence: ICD 203, Analytic Standards (2 January 2015)
- Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction: Overview of the Report (31 March 2005)
- Cabinet Office: Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, Implementation of its Conclusions (Cm 6492, March 2005)
Related
- Intelligence sourcing standards explained
How US Intelligence Community Directives 203 and 206 require analysts to cite, describe and weigh their sources, and what official reviews found.
- Circular reporting explained
How one source can look like many, what newsroom guides and US intelligence reviews say about it, and the checks that published standards set out.
- Single-source and two-source rules
What published newsroom codes say about confirming facts with two independent sources, when one source is allowed, and how unconfirmed claims are treated.
- Corroboration rules in criminal law
Where criminal law still requires two independent sources of evidence, from Scotland's general rule to perjury and treason, and where it was abolished.