Human intelligence · HUMINT

When human intelligence can clarify a business decision

Human intelligence is useful when a decision depends on understanding behaviour, relationships or working practices that published material leaves unresolved. A company might be considering a market entry, assessing a prospective commercial relationship or trying to reconcile conflicting accounts of an industry development. Commissioning should begin with a defined uncertainty, rather than a general request to discover everything about a person or organisation.

For Lo Presti, the purpose is to add human context to evidence, not to replace records with opinion. A proposed engagement could examine why buyers resist an apparently competitive offer, how purchasing decisions are actually influenced, or whether reported market conditions reflect everyday experience. The practical test is whether answering the question could materially inform a legitimate organisational decision.

Defining research questions and relevant sources

A useful research question identifies the issue, the relevant setting and the distinction the enquiry needs to resolve. Instead of asking whether a market is attractive, a brief could ask which operational barriers affect new suppliers, how those barriers vary between customer groups, and what experience supports each assessment. This makes interview selection more purposeful and reduces the risk of collecting interesting but irrelevant commentary.

Depending on the brief, appropriate contributors might include sector specialists, customers, suppliers or other stakeholders with relevant experience. Their value would depend on proximity to the issue, not seniority alone. Someone directly involved in purchasing may explain practical approval requirements better than a prominent commentator. Selection would also consider how recent their knowledge is, whose perspective they represent and whether commercial interests could shape their account.

From interview planning to corroborated findings

Lo Presti’s approach begins with the purpose of the enquiry, its legal and ethical constraints, and a proportionate plan for conversations. Within a proposed engagement, documentary research could help identify unresolved points and frame questions that do not assume the answer. Interviews would seek concrete explanations: what happened, what the contributor personally observed, and which circumstances might limit the relevance of that experience.

Assessment then turns to the relationship between accounts and supporting evidence. Several people repeating one industry rumour would not constitute several independent confirmations. Important statements would be checked against separate sources where possible, including relevant documents. Contradictions could prompt clarification rather than an immediate choice between competing versions. Where corroboration remains unavailable, the finding should retain that limitation instead of becoming an asserted fact through repetition.

Reporting evidence, interpretation and confidence

Human-source reporting should make the reasoning behind a finding visible. Lo Presti presents findings with their context, limitations and confidence, separating direct observation from belief and second-hand information. For a particular assignment, a report could organise the material around the agreed research questions, explaining which evidence supports an interpretation, where accounts differ and what remains unresolved. Detail about sources would need to respect appropriate confidentiality arrangements.

Practical interpretation matters as much as the interview material itself. A strongly expressed view is not necessarily a reliable indicator of wider conditions, while a qualified account may contain valuable first-hand evidence. Reporting could therefore explain the scope of each conclusion and its relevance to the decision. It should avoid implying statistical representativeness where qualitative conversations cannot support it.

Hypothetical use: understanding a market-entry obstacle

Consider a hypothetical business exploring entry into a specialist supply market. Published information suggests that customers welcome additional suppliers, but early commercial conversations produce little interest. A focused human-source enquiry could investigate whether the obstacle is price, procurement practice, service expectations or the perceived difficulty of switching. Relevant conversations might involve willing buyers, industry specialists and suppliers familiar with the market’s operating requirements.

Suppose those enquiries suggested that buyers prioritise continuity of support over modest price savings. That would be a proposition to test, not proof that every customer behaves alike. Documentary requirements and independent accounts could help establish whether the concern is widespread or confined to particular segments. The decision-maker could then reconsider the proposed offer or seek further evidence before committing resources, rather than treating favourable headline demand as sufficient justification.

Lawful boundaries and proportionate follow-up

Human-source research does not create an entitlement to another organisation’s confidential or restricted information. Lo Presti excludes coercion, bribery, unlawful interception, unauthorised access and false claims of official authority. Appropriately conducted interviews and voluntary contextual enquiries must also exclude covert impersonation. A confidentiality agreement cannot legitimise improper collection, and a contributor’s willingness to speak does not remove the need to assess what may lawfully be sought and used.

Follow-up should address a specific evidential gap rather than expand into unrestricted enquiry. Depending on the findings, this could mean clarifying an ambiguous statement, seeking an independent perspective or checking a claim against available records. If an uncertainty cannot be resolved within lawful and proportionate limits, it should remain explicit. The final interpretation should help the organisation distinguish actionable insight from questions requiring further consideration.

Designing a defensible interview programme

Clients considering human-source work should first ask whether the gap they face is actually one that documents cannot fill — market reputation, operating culture, or how a transaction is perceived locally — rather than a shortcut around difficult public-record research. A legitimate interview plan names the roles or categories of person likely to hold relevant first-hand knowledge (former colleagues, trade counterparts, professional advisers who can speak without breaching confidentiality obligations) and excludes approaches that would require a source to disclose privileged, contractual or legally protected information.

Analytically, each prospective source is assessed before contact for relevance, proximity to the facts (direct observation versus secondhand account), and plausible motive to mislead or exaggerate. During the conversation, factual claims are separated from opinion and rumour in real time, and significant claims are flagged for independent corroboration rather than accepted on the strength of the source's confidence or seniority. The interview programme must comply with the agreed purpose, applicable law and the boundaries set out in our responsible-intelligence standards.

The deliverable records each source's basis of knowledge, the degree of corroboration achieved, and explicitly separates what was observed from what was believed or repeated. Where corroboration could not be obtained, the report says so rather than upgrading an account's apparent reliability. Constraints include the limited number of people with genuine first-hand knowledge in small or closed markets, the risk that a source's own interests colour their account, and jurisdictions where certain lines of enquiry (employment relationships, health, political activity) carry specific legal protection that narrows what can properly be asked.