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. 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 interaction? 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 questions, investigators can plan approaches that encourage cooperation and disclosure rather than resistance. Science-Based Interviewing, relies on rapport, which is foundational to information-gathering because the goal is more information, not confrontation or confirmation.

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, and overlooked details before interviews begin. By deliberately exploring alternative scenarios and hypotheses, investigators expand the scope of inquiry and reduce tunnel vision. This leads to more comprehensive questioning and stronger investigative coverage.

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. It sharpens critical thinking, exposes bias, and strengthens planning long before an interview begins. When paired with Science-Based Interviewing, Red Teaming helps ensure interviews are structured, unbiased, and information-driven.

Investigative interviews carry enormous weight. They shape cases, influence outcomes, and affect lives. Red Teaming is one of the most effective tools investigators have to protect the integrity of that process—and to ensure that decisions are guided by evidence, not assumptions.

In modern investigations, Red Teaming functions as a decision-quality tool. When paired with Science-Based Interviewing, it helps investigators gather better information, reduce error and risk, 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.