This is a framework for a Team A/Team B Analysis. It is one of several formal analytical techniques that can guide analysis, thus ensuring a robust exploration of a topic and a well-considered conclusion. Team A/Team B is effective when there are two strong, competing opinions on an analytical question. After both sides have presented their arguments, a neutral party will decide which side made the strongest case. (Analyst’s note: AI tool Claude was strongly in organizing this outline, which can take different forms.)
A previous post, Team A/Team B Analysis: Accident Or Murder? Jamie Stickle, Pittsburgh, PA, 8 February 2002, illustrated a completed Team A/Team B exercise.
I. Executive Summary
Brief overview of the issue, the two competing interpretations, and key points of contention (2-3 paragraphs)
II. Background & Context
- Description of the situation or evidence under analysis
- Why this analysis matters
- Scope and limitations of the analysis
III. Shared Evidence Base
Clear presentation of the facts, data, or evidence that both teams are examining. This ensures both interpretations are working from the same foundation.
IV. Team A Position
- Core Argument: Main thesis or interpretation
- Key Supporting Points: 3-5 primary arguments with supporting evidence
- Underlying Assumptions: What Team A takes as given or emphasizes
- Strengths of This View: Where this interpretation is most compelling
- Addressing Counterarguments: How Team A would respond to Team B’s criticisms
V. Team B Position
- Core Argument: Main thesis or interpretation
- Key Supporting Points: 3-5 primary arguments with supporting evidence
- Underlying Assumptions: What Team B takes as given or emphasizes
- Strengths of This View: Where this interpretation is most compelling
- Addressing Counterarguments: How Team B would respond to Team A’s criticisms
VI. Comparative Analysis
- Points of Agreement: Where the teams align
- Key Divergences: Where and why interpretations differ
- Evidentiary Disputes: Disagreements about what the evidence shows
- Methodological Differences: Different analytical approaches or frameworks
- Values/Priority Differences: Different weightings of what matters most
VII. Critical Uncertainties
Questions or gaps in evidence that, if resolved, could strengthen one position over the other
VIII. Implications
- If Team A is Correct: Consequences and recommended actions
- If Team B is Correct: Consequences and recommended actions
- Risk Analysis: Costs of being wrong in either direction
IX. Conclusion
Synthesis of the analysis, acknowledging the legitimacy of both perspectives while noting which arguments appear strongest based on available evidence (if appropriate)
Tips for writing:
- Maintain intellectual honesty by presenting each side’s strongest case
- Use parallel structure when presenting Team A and Team B positions
- Avoid straw-manning either position
- Be explicit about your own analytical framework and any biases
- Consider including a “path forward” section if the goal is decision-making rather than pure analysis