Red Teaming in Action: Strengthening Investigative Thinking and Countering Confirmation Bias

Red teaming is a structured approach investigators use to deliberately challenge assumptions, test working theories, and reduce cognitive bias during investigations. Rather than reinforcing early conclusions, red teaming introduces disciplined skepticism into investigative decision-making, helping teams examine evidence more critically and explore alternative explanations. When applied intentionally, red teaming strengthens investigative thinking, mitigates confirmation bias, and improves the accuracy and integrity of investigative outcomes.

Introduction to Red Teaming

Red teaming is a practical strategy for investigators who want to improve critical thinking and decision-making in complex cases. By systematically challenging assumptions and group consensus, red teaming encourages a more thorough and unbiased evaluation of evidence. This approach helps investigators identify cognitive biases that can quietly influence conclusions and case direction.

The Origins of Red Teaming

Red teaming has its roots in military history, most notably the Prussian war game Kriegsspiel in the early 19th century. These exercises allowed commanders to stress-test plans by simulating adversarial responses and alternative outcomes. The underlying principle—challenging assumptions before committing to action—later appeared in other institutional settings, including the use of formal dissent to evaluate decisions.

In the post-9/11 era, red teaming became more formalized within military, intelligence, and security organizations. Today, red teaming is used to test plans, identify vulnerabilities, and improve decision-making under uncertainty. These same principles translate directly to investigations, where early assumptions can shape how evidence is interpreted and pursued.

Red teaming strengthens investigations

What Is Red Teaming in Investigations?

In an investigative context, red teaming is a structured method for challenging assumptions, questioning case theories, and examining evidence from alternative perspectives. Rather than accepting initial explanations at face value, investigators use red teaming to ask whether other plausible interpretations exist.

Red teaming promotes a culture of deliberate examination by encouraging investigators to explore competing explanations, identify weaknesses in reasoning, and assess whether evidence truly supports the working theory. This approach is particularly valuable in complex investigations, where early conclusions can unintentionally narrow thinking and limit inquiry.

Why Red Teaming Matters in Investigations

Red teaming is critical because it actively counters cognitive biases that interfere with objective analysis. One of the most common risks in investigations is confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that supports existing beliefs while discounting contradictory evidence.

By introducing structured challenge into the investigative process, red teaming helps teams avoid tunnel vision and groupthink. It encourages investigators to consider alternative scenarios, reassess conclusions, and examine whether evidence has been interpreted too narrowly. This leads to more balanced investigations, stronger case decisions, and outcomes that are easier to defend.

Red Teaming and Groupthink

Groupthink occurs when the desire for consensus suppresses critical evaluation and dissenting viewpoints. In investigative teams, this can result in overlooked evidence, unchallenged assumptions, or premature conclusions.

Red teaming directly addresses groupthink by normalizing structured dissent. Instead of relying on individuals to speak up informally, red teaming builds questioning and challenge into the process itself. This ensures that alternative perspectives are considered without personal conflict and that investigative decisions are thoroughly examined before moving forward.

Understanding Confirmation Bias

What Is Confirmation Bias?

Confirmation bias occurs when investigators unconsciously favor evidence that supports their existing beliefs while minimizing or dismissing conflicting information. This bias can influence evidence collection, interpretation, and decision-making throughout an investigation.

Recognizing confirmation bias is essential for maintaining objectivity. Awareness alone, however, is not enough. Investigators need structured methods to counteract it.

Beat confirmation bias to improve investigative outcomes.

How Confirmation Bias Affects Investigations

When confirmation bias takes hold, investigations can narrow prematurely. Investigators may focus on evidence that supports their theory while overlooking alternative explanations or contradictory information. This can lead to tunnel vision, weakened cases, and, in serious situations, miscarriages of justice.

Using Red Teaming to Counter Confirmation Bias

Red teaming provides a practical way to counter confirmation bias by forcing investigators to test assumptions rather than defend them. By deliberately examining alternative explanations and evaluating evidence against competing hypotheses, red teaming shifts investigations from confirmation to verification.

Challenging assumptions requires more than awareness—it requires structure. Without an intentional process, investigators may recognize bias yet still default to familiar reasoning under pressure. Red teaming offers a disciplined framework for testing assumptions, examining alternatives, and stress-testing decisions before conclusions solidify. For a deeper explanation of how red teaming works in investigations—and access to open, research-informed resources—see the Red Teaming for Investigations page.

Red Teaming Strategies in Investigations

Challenging Assumptions

Assumptions often guide investigative hypotheses, but unchallenged assumptions can distort evidence evaluation. Red teaming actively questions these assumptions by encouraging investigators to ask what must be true for a theory to hold and what evidence might contradict it. This process helps prevent tunnel vision and uncovers overlooked leads.

Red Teaming as Structured Critical Thinking

Red teaming supports critical thinking by moving beyond surface-level analysis. Investigators are encouraged to ask probing questions, consider multiple scenarios, and weigh competing explanations. While devil’s advocacy can be used as a tactic, red teaming provides a structured framework that ensures challenge is systematic rather than personality-driven.

Tools and Techniques

Common red teaming techniques include scenario analysis, structured dissent, and premortem analysis—where teams assume a case has failed and work backward to identify weaknesses. These tools help investigators identify gaps in reasoning, evidence, and decision-making before errors become embedded.

Enhancing Investigative Quality

Fair Evidence Evaluation

High-quality investigations require fair and balanced evidence evaluation. Red teaming supports this by encouraging investigators to examine all evidence—both inculpatory and exculpatory—without privileging early conclusions. Structured review and peer challenge help ensure that evidence is weighed appropriately and contextually when planning interviews and weighing decisions.

Mitigating Cognitive Bias

Cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, anchoring, and availability heuristics can subtly influence judgment. Red teaming disrupts these patterns by slowing decision-making and introducing alternative viewpoints. Regular use of red teaming helps investigators recognize bias earlier and respond more deliberately.

Building a Strong Investigative Culture

Red teaming also contributes to a healthier investigative culture. Expecting structured challenges encourages investigators to question assumptions and share dissenting views. This builds professionalism, accountability, and better investigative decision-making across teams.

Conclusion

Red teaming is not a contrarian role or a one-time exercise—it is a disciplined approach to investigative thinking. By intentionally challenging assumptions, countering confirmation bias, and testing evidence against alternative explanations, red teaming strengthens investigative decision-making. In complex investigations where early conclusions can quietly shape outcomes, red teaming provides a structured safeguard against error and a pathway toward more accurate, defensible, and just results.