A nod to this thread as a reminder of the importance of analysis and assessment in intelligence. Much media coverage on intelligence tends to lump it together as one thing or use the three UK agencies as a synonym for the whole UK intelligence community. https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1305141914899865601

But most of what is being written about is actually espionage or covert action, that is, the collection of information or secret operations to influence events and people. These are the areas in which SIS and GCHQ in particular specialise.

When it comes to understanding the world and making decisions, the information they collect needs to be organised and compared to other information available; the process of analysis. And then a judgement is made on what it *means*: the process of assessment.

That isn't done by the agencies, though they inform the process. It's done by all-source analysts, so called because they use all available sources, including media and openly available information that isn't covertly collected, such as diplomatic telegrams.

The Joint Intelligence Organisation, which writes the papers that go to the Joint Intelligence Committee, is one such body. Defence Intelligence is another, and the home of the largest number of all-source analysts in government.

Although part of the MOD, its 'strategic' analysis covers world events, crises and themes as well as military capabilities, so its work is relevant beyond the MOD.

It also maintains other UK collection capabilities, such as geospatial intelligence (mapping and topography) and imagery intelligence (the interpretation of photos and videos), drawing on satellites, aircraft or just people with hand-held recording devices.

Another all-source body people will have heard of is the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) which makes assessments on terrorist threats and trends and determines the UK threat level.

Assessment matters because intelligence reporting doesn't represent established fact; it can be a record of a confused conversation, or second-hand report of a meeting. The agencies put huge work into validation (verifying reports or the trustworthiness of the source).

That's especially true after Butler, which also highlighted the importance of getting assessment right. It's assessment that tries to make judgements about the *future* and set out plausible outcomes which need to be prepared for.

When reading or thinking about intelligence, as well as the exciting espionage (spying) bits, it's always worth thinking about assessment. The UK needs to be able to make sense of the information it is collecting, to discern the 'signal' from the 'noise'.

As an addendum, one journalist who has written about the range of UK intelligence is @MarkUrban01 , and although quite old now, if you can get hold of 'UK Eyes Alpha' it's an interesting bit of background reading.