Red Teaming for Investigations

Red teaming in investigations provides a deliberate way to examine assumptions, stress-test case theories, and identify alternative explanations before decisions harden. This approach helps investigators improve accuracy, reduce cognitive bias, and strengthen the quality of investigative outcomes.

Learn How Red Teaming Works

What Is Red Teaming in Investigations?

Red teaming for investigations is a structured, intentional process used to challenge assumptions, test hypotheses, and evaluate evidence before conclusions are reached or biases are hardened. In an investigative context, red teaming is not about criticism or second-guessing—it is about improving accuracy, decision quality, and case integrity.

Why Red Teaming Matters in Modern Investigations

Investigations today are harder than ever.

Investigators are expected to make high-stakes decisions while navigating massive amounts of information, evolving evidence, digital data, and intense time pressure. Add human judgment, organizational expectations, and cognitive bias to the mix, and the risk of error increases quickly.

Red teaming exists to counter those risks.

Used properly, red teaming helps investigations by:

Reducing confirmation bias and tunnel vision
Identifying weak assumptions before they contaminate decisions
Testing competing explanations against the evidence
Clarifying what the evidence actually supports—and what it does not
Strengthening case direction before irreversible steps are taken

Red teaming does not slow investigations down. It prevents them from going in the wrong direction.

Red Teaming Is Not Just the
“Devil’s Advocate”

Red teaming is often misunderstood as informal devil’s advocate thinking. That misunderstanding matters.

Devil’s advocate approaches are typically:

Personality-driven
Inconsistent
Dependent on who speaks up
Easily dismissed or overridden

Red teaming, by contrast, is:

Structured
Deliberate
Repeatable
Defensible

Red teaming does not rely on who is bold enough to challenge the room. It relies on a process that expects challenge and builds it into investigative decision-making.

How Red Teaming Works in an Investigation

Red teaming can be applied at any stage of an investigation, but it is most effective when used early and revisited regularly.

In practice, investigative red teaming focuses on:

Clarifying the Working Theory
What do we believe happened—and why?
Identifying Key Assumptions
What must be true for this theory to hold?
Testing Alternative Explanations
What else could reasonably explain the facts?
Evaluating Evidence Strength and Gaps
What supports the theory? What contradicts it? What’s missing?
Assessing Decision Risk
What happens if this assumption is wrong?

This process is not abstract. It is grounded in the evidence already collected and the evidence still needed.

Red Teaming and Evidence-Based Investigative Practice

Red teaming aligns naturally with evidence-based investigations.

Modern investigative research consistently shows that errors rarely stem from a lack of effort or intent. They stem from how information is interpreted, how hypotheses are formed, and how early conclusions influence later decisions.

Red teaming supports evidence-based practice by reinforcing:

Hypothesis testing rather than conclusion seeking
Falsification instead of confirmation
Structured decision-making over intuition alone
Transparency in how conclusions are reached

When paired with Science-Based Interviewing, red teaming helps protect the integrity of statement evidence, ensuring that interviews gather information rather than unconsciously steering it.

Where Red Teaming Fits Best

Red teaming is especially valuable in:

Complex or high-profile investigations
Cases with large volumes of digital or circumstantial evidence
Investigations relying heavily on statement evidence
Task force or multi-agency cases
Supervisor-level case reviews
Internal affairs, critical incidents, and professional standards reviews

In these environments, unchecked assumptions can quietly shape outcomes long before anyone realizes it.

Red Teaming Is About Quality Control, Not Criticism

Red teaming is not about assigning blame after the fact.

It is about building a culture where investigators are expected to question their own thinking before others do it for them. Strong investigations are not those that avoid scrutiny—they are the ones that withstand it.

Red teaming provides a professional, ethical way to apply that scrutiny while decisions can still be improved.

Red Teaming Training & Consulting

IXI Solutions provides red teaming instruction and facilitation designed specifically for investigative environments. Training focuses on practical application, real-world cases, and defensible decision-making—not theory divorced from practice.

Red teaming can be delivered as:

Standalone instruction
Integrated into investigative training
Supervisor-focused case review workshops
Embedded within science-based interviewing classes

The goal is simple: better decisions, stronger cases, and fewer preventable errors.

Selected Open Resources on Red Teaming

The following open-source publications are included as supplemental resources for those interested in deeper exploration of red teaming, investigative decision-making, and quality control. These materials provide valuable frameworks and research perspectives but are not written specifically for criminal investigations. They are included here to support transparency, continued learning, and evidence-informed practice.

Red Team Handbook
A foundational guide to red teaming concepts and structured challenge methods. Useful for understanding core terminology and analytical approaches that can be adapted to investigative decision-making.

Quality Control in Criminal Investigation
A research-focused examination of investigative decision-making, bias, and quality assurance in complex investigations. Particularly relevant to hypothesis testing, tunnel vision, and evidence evaluation.

Quality Control in Fraud and Corruption Investigations
An advanced exploration of investigative thinking, judgment, and decision-making in complex, fact-rich cases. While focused on financial crime, the principles translate directly to high-stakes investigative work.