Interview Questions for National Intelligence Estimate Writing

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) follows a standardized structure to ensure consistency and clarity. Think of it like a well-organized research paper. It typically begins with a concise Executive Summary, providing a high-level overview of the key judgments. This is crucial because policymakers often only read this section. Following the Executive Summary is the main body, which is usually divided into several sections. These sections delve into the specific intelligence issues, providing detailed analysis and supporting evidence. A typical structure might include:

• Introduction: Sets the context and scope of the assessment.
• Key Judgments: Presents the core conclusions of the NIE.
• Analysis: Provides detailed analysis of the intelligence supporting the judgments. This section often breaks down the problem into sub-issues, offering separate analyses for each.
• Alternative Scenarios: Explores potential alternative outcomes or scenarios, acknowledging the inherent uncertainties in intelligence.
• Conclusions: Summarizes the main findings and reiterates the key judgments.
• Appendices (if necessary): May include supporting data, methodology descriptions, or other supplementary information.

The overall structure is designed to facilitate clear communication of complex intelligence issues to senior policymakers, who are often under significant time pressure. The clear, logical flow is paramount.

The NIE development process is rigorous and collaborative. It begins with a tasking from senior policymakers – essentially, a question or issue requiring intelligence analysis. The Intelligence Community (IC) then determines which agencies possess the relevant expertise and intelligence. A lead agency is assigned, coordinating the effort with other contributing agencies.

This is followed by collection and analysis. Analysts meticulously gather information from various sources, such as human intelligence (HUMINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), open-source intelligence (OSINT), and imagery intelligence (IMINT). Each agency contributes its findings. This phase involves intensive research, data fusion, and analytic tradecraft. Next, the draft NIE goes through several review cycles, involving internal peer reviews within each agency, interagency consultations, and finally, review by the National Intelligence Council (NIC). This iterative process ensures rigorous quality control and coordination.

The final NIE is then disseminated to policymakers. The process emphasizes consensus-building; however, dissenting opinions may be included if warranted. This ensures transparency and acknowledges the inherent uncertainties in intelligence assessments. The dissemination is carefully managed to ensure the sensitive nature of the information is protected.

Synthesizing diverse intelligence sources is arguably the most critical skill in NIE writing. It’s like piecing together a complex puzzle with many missing pieces. We use a structured approach: first, we carefully assess the credibility and reliability of each source, considering factors like the source’s motivation, track record, and potential biases. We then use a combination of techniques. Correlation involves looking for convergence between different sources to corroborate information. Triangulation involves verifying information from independent sources. For conflicting data, we conduct a careful weight-of-evidence analysis, assessing the quality and quantity of information from each source and using various analytic techniques, such as Bayesian analysis, to integrate them into a coherent judgment. The goal is to arrive at a judgment that is not only well-supported but also explicitly acknowledges uncertainties and caveats.

For example, if one HUMINT source provides conflicting information to several open-source reports, careful analysis is needed to ascertain the validity and reliability of each and evaluate them objectively.

Maintaining objectivity and avoiding bias is a constant challenge. The inherent nature of intelligence work – dealing with incomplete information, often under pressure – introduces biases. Several key challenges exist:

• Analyst Bias: Analysts may unintentionally interpret information to confirm existing beliefs or assumptions. This is mitigated through rigorous peer review, diverse teams, and structured analytical techniques.
• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to seek out information that confirms pre-existing beliefs and to disregard information that contradicts them. We combat this by actively seeking out alternative perspectives and challenging our own assumptions.
• Political Pressure: Political pressure can influence the assessment process, potentially leading to biased conclusions. Maintaining independence and impartiality is a critical requirement. Strict adherence to analytic standards is key.
• Incomplete Information: Working with incomplete information, inherently biased data is another hurdle. Explicitly acknowledging the limitations of available information is vital.

Robust internal review processes and a culture of intellectual honesty are essential for mitigating these challenges. Independent validation with diverse sources also minimizes the impact of any single biased source.

Conflicting assessments are common in intelligence work. We don’t shy away from them; instead, we embrace them as opportunities for deeper analysis. The process involves:

• Identify and Document Discrepancies: Clearly document all disagreements and the underlying rationale.
• Analyze the Sources: Assess the credibility and reliability of each source, including the methodologies employed.
• Reconcile the Differences: If possible, seek to reconcile the differences through further analysis or collection of additional information.
• Present Competing Assessments: If irreconcilable differences remain, we present them honestly and transparently in the NIE, explaining the rationale for each competing assessment. This approach allows policymakers to understand the range of possibilities and make informed decisions.
• Weight of Evidence Approach: Often the most reliable judgment is formed by assessing which side has the stronger weight of evidence.

Transparency is key. The goal is not to eliminate disagreement but to present a complete and nuanced picture of the intelligence landscape to the decision-makers.

Clarity, conciseness, and precision are paramount in NIE writing. Policymakers need to understand complex issues quickly and accurately. Think of it as communicating crucial information under immense time constraints. Clarity ensures that the information is easily understood by the intended audience. We use plain language, avoiding jargon whenever possible. Conciseness means presenting the most important information efficiently, without unnecessary detail. Every sentence should serve a purpose. Precision implies accuracy and avoiding ambiguity. We use specific and verifiable information and support all judgments with evidence.

Using clear headings, subheadings, bullet points, and visuals aids comprehension and conciseness. For example, instead of lengthy paragraphs, using bulleted points detailing various scenarios allows for better comprehension. Each sentence should be meticulously crafted to ensure precision and accuracy.

My experience spans a wide range of intelligence collection methods. I’ve worked extensively with:

• HUMINT: Analyzing reports from human sources, carefully assessing their credibility and reliability. This often involves evaluating the source’s motivation and potential biases.
• SIGINT: Interpreting intercepted communications, such as phone calls, emails, and radio transmissions. This requires specialized technical expertise and careful contextual analysis.
• OSINT: Gathering information from publicly available sources, such as news articles, social media, and academic publications. This requires careful assessment of source credibility and identifying potential biases.
• IMINT: Analyzing satellite imagery and aerial photographs. This requires expertise in image interpretation and geospatial analysis.

Integrating information from these diverse sources requires careful analysis and understanding of the strengths and limitations of each. In a recent NIE on a specific geopolitical issue, for example, we synthesized HUMINT information on leadership intentions with SIGINT data on their communication patterns to create a fuller picture of the situation.

Creating an accessible NIE requires a multi-pronged approach focusing on clarity, conciseness, and audience awareness. We begin by defining the key audiences – policymakers, military commanders, diplomats, etc. – and tailoring the language and level of detail accordingly. For example, a NIE on a complex technical issue for policymakers might focus on the high-level implications rather than the granular technical details, while a version for technical specialists could include these details.

We use clear, plain language, avoiding jargon unless absolutely necessary and defining any specialized terms used. Visual aids such as charts, maps, and tables can significantly improve understanding and break up large blocks of text, making the information easier to digest. Finally, a comprehensive executive summary upfront distills the key judgments and conclusions, allowing even busy readers to quickly grasp the essence of the report.

For instance, in a NIE on the potential for civil unrest in a specific country, we might use a map to visually represent the geographic distribution of risk, making the information instantly understandable even for readers without extensive regional expertise. The executive summary will briefly summarize the key findings, while the main body provides more detailed analysis supporting the assessment.

Uncertainty is inherent in intelligence analysis; therefore, explicitly acknowledging and quantifying it is crucial to NIE credibility. We use a range of methods to incorporate uncertainty. First, we employ qualifier language throughout the document, using phrases such as ‘likely,’ ‘possible,’ ‘unlikely,’ or ‘highly probable’ to reflect the degree of confidence in our judgments.

We also dedicate sections to discuss specific caveats and assumptions underlying our analysis. These sections clearly articulate the limitations of our intelligence, highlighting any gaps in data, methodological constraints, or alternative interpretations. This ensures transparency and helps readers understand the context and boundaries of our conclusions. We may also present alternative scenarios – what would happen if assumption X proves incorrect? – showcasing plausible ranges of outcomes. For example, if a NIE discusses the potential for a foreign government to deploy a certain weapon system, we’d explicitly state the uncertainty range: ‘It is likely they will deploy the system within the next year, but a range of factors could delay this to 18-24 months’.

These methods allow policymakers to make informed decisions despite uncertainty rather than relying on potentially misleading definitive pronouncements.

Balancing speed and quality in NIE production requires meticulous planning and execution. A rigorous timeline is established at the outset, with clearly defined milestones and deliverables. This timeline is collaboratively agreed upon by all contributing analysts and reviewed regularly to ensure its feasibility. We employ a highly structured writing and review process, often breaking down the NIE into smaller, manageable sections assigned to different analysts specializing in relevant areas.

A robust quality control mechanism is essential. This usually involves multiple layers of review – peer reviews within teams, cross-disciplinary reviews to ensure all perspectives are integrated, and senior-level reviews to ensure consistency with overall intelligence community assessments. The process includes iterative drafts and revisions to ensure both thoroughness and accuracy. We might also conduct a “red team” exercise to challenge the core assumptions and conclusions of the NIE, fostering more robust and realistic assessments.

Efficient use of technology is crucial to accelerate the process. Collaboration tools facilitate the seamless sharing of information and documents, minimizing delays caused by logistical issues. However, the quality of the analysis is paramount; while speed is important, it should never compromise the integrity and accuracy of the final product.

Analytic tradecraft forms the backbone of NIE development. My experience spans various techniques, including:

• Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs): I have extensive experience using methods like Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to systematically evaluate multiple plausible explanations for a given event or trend, and reduce biases in analysis. For example, in an NIE on a foreign government’s intentions, ACH helped us rigorously weigh different possible motives – economic gain, political leverage, or ideology – using available evidence to rank their likelihood.
• Source Evaluation and Integration: I’ve honed my skills in critically assessing the reliability and credibility of different intelligence sources, understanding their biases and limitations, and effectively integrating these diverse pieces of information into a coherent narrative. This involves constantly questioning the reliability of the sources of information, and cross-referencing them to reduce potential biases.
• Mapping and Trend Analysis: I use these visualization techniques to organize complex information and identify patterns that reveal deeper insights into the issue at hand. For instance, mapping out the movement of military assets and plotting key political events can provide context and reveal patterns that could have otherwise been missed.

By applying these techniques systematically, I can enhance the objectivity, validity, and overall quality of the analysis presented in the NIE.

Dissenting opinions are not only tolerated but actively encouraged in the NIE process. Open and frank debate is essential for producing a balanced and credible assessment. Analysts are free to express alternative perspectives, and these views are carefully considered and documented within the NIE. This might be done through dedicated sections outlining dissenting viewpoints with their justifications, or it could be integrated into the main body by acknowledging different interpretations of the evidence.

It is critical that dissenting opinions are presented fairly and accurately, representing the rationale behind the different positions. It’s not about finding a ‘winner’ or suppressing alternative views, but rather enriching the overall assessment by displaying a spectrum of reasoned interpretations. The NIE process should aim for consensus where possible, but the absence of consensus isn’t seen as a failure. Transparency about the disagreement itself is more valuable than artificial consensus. In my experience, acknowledging and explaining disagreement builds confidence in the final product – it shows readers that the assessment considered all significant perspectives.

Collaboration is paramount in NIE development. I have extensive experience working within large interagency teams, composed of analysts with diverse backgrounds and expertise. This requires effective communication, mutual respect, and a willingness to compromise. We utilize collaborative writing and editing platforms that allow for simultaneous editing and tracking of changes.

My experience involves facilitating group discussions, synthesizing diverse viewpoints, and mediating disagreements to reach a shared understanding. We frequently hold brainstorming sessions, using techniques like mind-mapping to collectively explore the topic and identify key considerations. Clear roles and responsibilities are established upfront, ensuring efficiency and reducing duplication of effort. Regular progress meetings help to track progress, address roadblocks, and maintain focus. Finally, the drafting and editing process typically involves several rounds of review and revision, ensuring that the final product is a cohesive and well-supported document that truly represents a synthesis of all contributing analysts’ insights.

Staying abreast of current events is crucial for producing timely and relevant NIEs. My approach involves a multifaceted strategy:

• Open-source monitoring: I regularly review reputable news outlets, academic journals, and think tank publications relevant to my area of expertise. This provides a broad overview of emerging trends and events.
• Intelligence community reporting: I have access to a wide array of intelligence reports and databases which provide in-depth analysis and data on relevant topics.
• Direct engagement: I engage in conversations with colleagues across different agencies, attend conferences, and participate in professional networks to benefit from their expertise and insights. This allows me to exchange information and gain diverse perspectives.
• Specialized monitoring tools: I also utilize specialized software and databases that monitor online activity, media trends, and social media to identify potential indicators relevant to my NIE work.

By combining these sources, I ensure that my NIE work is informed by the most current and comprehensive information available. This is essential for producing timely, insightful, and credible assessments.

The intelligence cycle is a fundamental framework for intelligence production, encompassing planning and direction, collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination. Think of it as an assembly line for intelligence: each stage builds upon the previous one. NIE production sits squarely within the analysis and dissemination phases. The cycle starts with identifying intelligence needs (planning and direction), which often originates from policymakers. Then, intelligence collectors gather raw data (collection). This raw data is then processed and refined (processing), preparing it for analysis. Analysts like myself, using various methodologies, then analyze this refined data, interpreting meaning and developing insights, ultimately culminating in an NIE (analysis). Finally, the completed NIE is disseminated to policymakers and other consumers (dissemination).

For NIE production specifically, the analysis phase is paramount. We leverage data from all previous stages of the cycle to produce a comprehensive, authoritative judgment on a critical national security issue. The disseminated NIE then informs policy decisions, completing the cycle’s feedback loop and potentially triggering new intelligence requirements.

Managing competing priorities and deadlines when working on NIEs requires meticulous planning and prioritization. NIEs are inherently complex, involving multiple analysts, often working across different agencies. Think of it like a symphony orchestra—many individual parts must come together flawlessly. My approach involves:

• Detailed project planning: Breaking down the NIE into manageable tasks with clear deadlines for each stage.
• Regular progress tracking: Using tools to monitor the progress of each task and promptly identify potential delays.
• Effective communication and collaboration: Maintaining open communication among all team members to address challenges proactively and efficiently.
• Prioritization: Focusing on the most critical aspects first, ensuring that essential elements are completed on time, even if less crucial ones are slightly delayed.
• Contingency planning: Having a backup plan to account for unforeseen setbacks or delays. This often includes prioritizing tasks based on their impact on the overall timeline.

For example, during a critical NIE on a rapidly evolving geopolitical situation, we had to prioritize the analysis of real-time data while simultaneously ensuring the incorporation of historical context. Clear communication between the team and the appropriate stakeholders allowed for necessary adjustments in deadlines and priorities.

My experience includes proficiency in several software and tools critical to intelligence analysis and writing. These range from secure databases and collaboration platforms to analytical software. Some examples include:

• Secure databases: Specialized databases with robust access controls for storing and managing classified information.
• Collaboration platforms: Secure platforms like SharePoint or specialized intelligence community tools for collaborative document editing and version control.
• Data analysis software: Tools like statistical packages (SPSS, R) and data visualization tools (Tableau) for analyzing large datasets and representing findings clearly.
• Mapping and geospatial analysis tools: ArcGIS and other geospatial software are essential for visualizing intelligence data geographically.
• Word processing software with robust security features: Specialized word processors that support secure handling of classified materials are crucial.

Each tool contributes to the efficiency and accuracy of NIE production, ensuring the final product reflects a comprehensive analysis grounded in robust evidence.

Ensuring NIE compliance with security protocols and classification guidelines is paramount. This involves a multi-layered approach, starting with the initial planning stages and extending through the dissemination phase. We adhere to strict procedures involving:

• Classification review: Each section of the NIE is reviewed to ensure its classification level is appropriate and accurate.
• Compartmentalization: Sensitive information is compartmentalized, limiting access to individuals with appropriate security clearances and a need-to-know basis.
• Handling classified information: Stringent protocols are followed regarding the secure storage, transmission, and destruction of classified materials.
• Use of secure communication channels: All communication related to the NIE is conducted through secure channels to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure.
• Regular security training: All personnel involved in NIE production undergo regular security training to stay updated on classification guidelines and handling procedures.

Breaching these protocols can have severe consequences, so adherence to these rules is non-negotiable.

One significant challenge I faced involved an NIE on a rapidly evolving technological threat. Initial assessments relied heavily on open-source intelligence, which proved insufficient for accurately predicting the threat’s trajectory. The challenge was to incorporate limited, highly classified information from a reluctant partner agency while maintaining the NIE’s deadline. The solution was a multi-pronged approach:

• Negotiating access: I worked diligently with the partner agency to understand their concerns and build trust, ensuring they understood the NIE’s criticality.
• Employing alternative analytical techniques: We used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to compensate for data gaps and enhance analytical rigor.
• Strategic communication: Maintaining clear and consistent communication with all stakeholders, including policymakers, helped manage expectations.

While achieving complete clarity was not possible given the limited access to certain sources, the final NIE provided the best possible assessment, considering all available evidence and limitations, and was well-received by decision-makers. This experience emphasized the importance of adaptability, strong inter-agency cooperation, and transparent communication in NIE production.

Evaluating the credibility and reliability of intelligence sources is a critical aspect of NIE production. It involves a thorough assessment of multiple factors, considering the source’s track record, motivations, and the inherent biases. The process is similar to evaluating evidence in a court case—we want to ensure that the evidence is reliable, relevant, and admissible.

We use several methods:

• Source corroboration: We seek to corroborate information from multiple independent sources. If several independent sources offer similar accounts, the credibility of the information is significantly enhanced.
• Source track record: We evaluate the source’s past performance in providing accurate and reliable information. Sources with a history of accuracy are given more weight.
• Source motivation: Understanding the source’s motivations and potential biases is crucial. For instance, a source may provide information that serves its own political or economic interests. We need to account for such potential biases.
• Method of collection: The method of collection also influences credibility. Information gathered through human intelligence (HUMINT) might require more scrutiny than information obtained through open-source data.

Think of it like a jury deciding a case – they assess multiple pieces of evidence and assess their reliability and credibility to reach a verdict. Similarly, we evaluate multiple intelligence sources, assess their reliability, and consider their limitations to produce a sound judgment in our NIEs.

Quality control and review in NIE development are rigorous and multi-stage processes. This ensures the final product is accurate, comprehensive, and reflects the best available intelligence. The process typically involves:

• Internal review: The NIE undergoes multiple internal reviews by analysts, editors, and supervisors within the producing agency.
• External review: The draft NIE is reviewed by other intelligence agencies and relevant policy offices to gather additional perspectives and ensure a consensus view.
• Senior review: The NIE is reviewed by senior intelligence officials to ensure that it aligns with overall national intelligence priorities and policy objectives.
• Final editing and clearance: The NIE undergoes final editing to ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to classification guidelines. This is followed by formal clearance by appropriate authorities.

These steps are not mere formalities; they are essential for ensuring that the NIE meets the highest standards of accuracy, credibility, and objectivity. Think of it as a peer-review process in academia, but with much higher stakes. This process guarantees that the NIE represents the most well-informed judgment of the Intelligence Community.

Incorporating feedback on a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is crucial for producing a high-quality, well-informed assessment. The process isn’t simply about accepting suggestions, but rather a thoughtful synthesis of various perspectives to strengthen the final product.

Firstly, I meticulously review each comment, considering the reviewer’s expertise and the specific points raised. For example, if a regional expert flags a potential oversight in our analysis of a specific country’s political landscape, I delve deeper into the available intelligence, potentially conducting further research or consulting other analysts.

Secondly, I categorize feedback into areas for: (a) factual correction (e.g., correcting a typo or updating a statistic), (b) clarification (e.g., rewording a sentence to enhance clarity), and (c) substantive revision (e.g., reevaluating an assessment based on compelling new evidence). For substantive revisions, I engage in discussions with the reviewers to ensure a shared understanding before making any changes.

Finally, I meticulously track all changes made, including the rationale behind each decision. This detailed record allows for transparency and aids in future reviews or revisions of the NIE. This entire feedback incorporation process is iterative, involving multiple rounds of review and refinement until a consensus is achieved.

Several pitfalls can undermine the credibility and effectiveness of an NIE. One major pitfall is overconfidence in the assessment. We must avoid presenting conclusions with excessive certainty, especially when dealing with limited or ambiguous intelligence. Instead, we should clearly articulate the level of confidence, highlighting any uncertainties or gaps in our knowledge.

Another common mistake is groupthink. The NIE writing process involves a team, and it’s vital to foster an environment where diverse viewpoints are encouraged and dissenting opinions are welcomed. Suppressing contrary perspectives can lead to flawed analysis.

A further concern is bias. Analysts, like anyone, can have inherent biases that unknowingly influence their assessments. We mitigate this through techniques like structured analytic techniques (discussed further in Question 7), rigorous review processes, and a conscious effort to seek alternative explanations.

Lastly, poor clarity and structure can severely hamper the document’s impact. A well-written NIE is concise, logical, and easy to understand, even for those unfamiliar with the specific intelligence context. We use clear language, avoid jargon, and employ effective visual aids whenever appropriate.

Presenting NIE findings to senior officials requires meticulous preparation and a clear understanding of the audience’s priorities and concerns. My experience involves presenting on diverse topics, from geopolitical assessments to emerging technological threats.

Before a presentation, I rigorously rehearse, tailoring the briefing to the specific audience’s knowledge and time constraints. I often employ visual aids, such as charts and maps, to simplify complex data and enhance comprehension.

During the briefing, I focus on conveying the key judgments clearly and concisely, acknowledging uncertainties and limitations while highlighting high-confidence assessments. I also anticipate potential questions and prepare thoughtful responses. In my experience, active listening and a willingness to engage in robust discussion are essential. After the presentation, I provide a written copy of the NIE and am available to answer further questions.

One memorable instance involved briefing a high-level committee on the potential destabilization of a specific region. By clearly articulating the interconnected risks and potential consequences, we were able to facilitate a timely policy response.

Handling sensitive information is paramount in NIE writing. We adhere to strict security protocols throughout the entire process, from data collection and analysis to dissemination and storage. This includes using secure communication channels, employing encryption where necessary, and rigorously controlling access to classified information.

Each individual involved in the NIE process undergoes security clearances, and access is granted on a need-to-know basis. We strictly follow established guidelines for handling classified materials, including proper marking, storage, and destruction of documents. This includes physical security measures like secure facilities and electronic security measures like access controls and data encryption.

Furthermore, I regularly participate in security awareness training, ensuring my knowledge and practices remain updated with the latest security protocols. Any potential breach or compromise of sensitive information is immediately reported through established channels, allowing for prompt mitigation.

My greatest strength lies in my ability to synthesize complex information from diverse sources and translate it into clear, concise, and actionable intelligence assessments. I excel at identifying key trends and patterns, even within ambiguous or incomplete datasets. I am also a strong collaborator, able to effectively work within teams to achieve a shared goal.

One area for improvement is developing even greater fluency in incorporating and representing statistical analysis techniques within my writing, a goal I am actively pursuing through additional training and professional development. While I understand the principles, I seek to enhance my skill in seamlessly integrating statistical data into a narrative that is both accessible and impactful.

Adapting writing style depends heavily on the intended audience and the purpose of the NIE. For example, a briefing for policymakers requires a different approach than a detailed technical assessment for other analysts.

When writing for policymakers, I prioritize conciseness and clarity. I use simple language, avoiding jargon wherever possible. The focus is on the key judgments and their implications for policy. Visual aids are critical in this context.

For a technical audience, I can include more detailed analysis, methodologies, and data. A greater level of technical jargon is permissible. The purpose is to present a complete and transparent account of the intelligence process.

Ultimately, the goal is always effective communication. Irrespective of the audience, a clear, well-structured, and well-supported NIE is critical.

My experience encompasses a range of intelligence analytic methodologies, including several structured analytic techniques (SATs). These techniques are crucial for mitigating cognitive biases and enhancing the objectivity of our assessments.

I frequently utilize techniques such as Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to systematically evaluate multiple plausible explanations for a given event. This helps us avoid premature conclusions and consider alternative perspectives.

Key Assumptions Check (KAC) is another valuable tool; it forces us to examine the underlying assumptions driving our analysis, identifying potential weaknesses in our reasoning. This rigorous self-assessment helps ensure the robustness of our judgments.

Premortem analysis, where we imagine a scenario where our assessment has failed, allows us to proactively identify potential vulnerabilities and weaknesses before they lead to significant errors in judgment.

Finally, the use of matrixes and other visual aids are invaluable to help organize large amounts of data and highlight key relationships. These techniques aid in identifying patterns and trends that might otherwise be overlooked.