Red Teaming: Strengthening Investigations Through Disciplined Critical Thinking

There is a timeless adage in investigations: failing to prepare is preparing to fail. Few areas expose this truth than investigative interviews do. Whether speaking with a witness, victim, or suspect, the quality of information obtained is shaped long before the first question is asked. Preparation is not simply about drafting questions or believing in a case theory. It requires disciplined critical thinking. Red teaming provides investigators with a structured way to challenge assumptions, test conclusions, and strengthen decision-making before an interview ever begins.

Red teaming is a method of critical thinking used to challenge assumptions, test investigative hypotheses, and identify alternative explanations before decisions are made. In investigative work, red teaming helps prevent bias, strengthen planning, and improve the quality of interviews and outcomes. Simply put, red teaming helps you, an investigator, stay adaptive and agile during your investigation.

Planning and Red Teaming Help Investigators Stay Adaptable and Agile During Investigations

Planning With a Red Team Mindset

Red teaming is not a separate task added to investigations; it is a way of thinking during planning. It forces investigators to slow down and ask serious questions about what they believe, why they believe it, and what they might be missing. In investigative interviews, this mindset improves strategy, question design, and information control.

Red teaming is critical thinking done on purpose. It is a deliberate effort to challenge assumptions, question conclusions, and test investigative reasoning before decisions are made. While this may feel counterintuitive—especially in fast-moving investigations—the discomfort is intentional. Red teaming exists to help investigators check their own thinking early, before unchecked assumptions shape interviews, evidence interpretation, or case outcomes.

Red Teaming and Rapport

Before any interview begins, investigators should ask: Who is this person? How do they see me? How might they experience this interview? While rapport is often discussed as an in-interview skill, red teaming strengthens rapport before the interview starts. By anticipating how an interviewee may perceive authority (you), suspicion, or predictable questions, investigators can plan approaches that encourage cooperation and disclosure rather than resistance and counter-interrogation strategies. Science-Based Interviewing, relies on rapport, which is foundational to information-gathering approaches because the goal is more information, not confrontation or confirmation or even a confession.

Red Teaming as Applied Critical Thinking

Red teaming is critical thinking with structure. It requires investigators to deliberately challenge their own assumptions and expose vulnerabilities in their reasoning. Two of the most common investigative threats Red Teaming addresses are confirmation bias and guilt bias.

Confirmation bias occurs when investigators favor information that supports their existing beliefs while discounting contradictory or exculpatory evidence. Guilt bias emerges when a suspect is viewed as culpable early, often based on weak indicators or pseudoscientific cues. Red Teaming disrupts both by forcing investigators to ask: What if this assumption is wrong? What evidence would support an alternative explanation? Are there rival causes?

By adopting an opposing perspective, investigators pressure-test their case before a supervisor or attorney does it for them.

Anticipating Resistance and Alternative Narratives

Red Teaming also prepares investigators for what may happen inside the interview room. By exploring how an interviewee might explain evidence, deny involvement, or introduce contradictions, investigators reduce surprise and improve adaptability. This preparation allows interviews to remain controlled, curious, and information-focused rather than reactive.

Science-Based Interviewing benefits directly from this process. When assumptions are challenged early, interviewers are better positioned to gather uncontaminated accounts and evaluate statements against evidence without prematurely shaping them.

Reducing the Risk of Missing Critical Information

One of the greatest risks in investigations is not bad information, but missing information. Red teaming helps investigators identify gaps, unknowns, escape routes, and overlooked details before interviews begin. By deliberately exploring alternative scenarios and hypotheses, and evidence interpretations, investigators expand the scope of inquiry, add more interview objectives, and reduce tunnel vision. This leads to more comprehensive questioning, more investigative information, and risk reduction.

Confidence Built on Preparation

Confidence in investigative interviews should come from preparation, not improvisation. Red teaming strengthens investigator confidence by replacing uncertainty with tested assumptions and flexible strategies. Investigators who prepare this way are better equipped to handle unexpected disclosures, resistance, or contradictions without losing control of the interview.

Conclusion

Red teaming is a force multiplier for investigations, whether preparing for an interview, creating an evidence disclosure plan, conducting a major case peer review, or working on a case hypothesis. It sharpens critical thinking, exposes bias, challenges assumptions, and strengthens planning long before an interview begins. When paired with Science-Based Interviewing, red teaming helps ensure interviews remain structured, adaptable, unbiased, and focused on gathering accurate, reliable information.

Investigative interviews carry enormous weight. They shape cases, influence decisions, and affect lives. Red Teaming gives investigators a disciplined way to pressure-test their thinking before conclusions harden—asking what may have been missed, what alternative explanations exist, and what evidence would be expected if the current theory were wrong.

Our red team resources and online Premortem Case Analysis Tool and Report Generator help put that process into practice by giving investigators a structured way to identify vulnerabilities, challenge investigative assumptions, expose gaps in reasoning and evidence, and document alternative explanations before critical decisions are made.

In modern investigations, red teaming is fundamentally a decision-quality tool. Combined with Science-Based Interviewing, it helps investigators gather more information, reduce error and investigative risk, remain adaptable as new evidence emerges, and make defensible decisions rooted in evidence rather than assumptions.

References

Bergsmo, M. (2019). Towards a Culture of Quality Control in Criminal Investigations. FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 94. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.

Bergsmo, M., Agirre Aranburu, X., De Smet, S., & Stahn, C. (Eds.). (2020). Quality Control in Criminal Investigation. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.

U.S. Army. (2019). Red Team Handbook. University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies.

Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012). Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: Does its building and maintenance work? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1), 73-84.