Dossier Analytical Working Method

The basic idea of the analytical lens

The analytical lens is not a technical tool, but a mental framework built around three core questions:

• What do we really know?
  Secured facts, reliable documents, verifiable processes.
• What are hypotheses and stories?
  Narratives, interpretations, interests, emotions.
• What does the causality look like?
  What triggered what, what amplified it, what made it possible in the first place?

Instead of looking at a case only along the time axis (“First A happened, then B, then C”), I structure it along causal strands:

• Where are the root causes?
• Where are the amplifiers?
• Where is mere background noise?

A central part of my personal working style is the ability to think non-linearly across several causal strands on multiple logical levels at the same time. I can keep operational, tactical, strategic, psychological and causal elements in view in parallel and, from these levels, make connections visible that would otherwise remain hidden.

These chains of causality are considered on five levels.

The five levels of analysis

1. Operational level

This is about the very concrete:

• Who did or omitted what and when?
• Which e-mails, conversations, instructions, actions can be proven?
• Which technical, organisational and spatial processes played a role?

Examples:

• The exact sequence of actions during a search or police operation.
• The actual sequence of a flight, maintenance event or shift duty.
• Which files were opened, copied or sent.

2. Tactical level

The tactical level looks at patterns and typical modes of operation:

• Is a loophole being systematically exploited?
• Are there recurring manipulation schemes?
• Is behaviour “typical” for certain offences or structures?

Examples:

• An employee who repeatedly stays just below approval thresholds.
• Typical preparatory acts preceding embezzlement or fraud.
• Conspicuous routines at a station where goods keep “disappearing”.

3. Strategic level

The strategic level asks about aims and interests:

• Who wanted to achieve what?
• Which economic, political or personal goals lie behind certain behaviour?
• Which actors benefit – even indirectly – from certain decisions or non-decisions?

Examples:

• A company that, for political or commercial reasons, does not want an incident to escalate.
• Actors who use proceedings to weaken internal rivals.
• Authorities that intend to make an example.

4. Psychological level

No situation is complete without psychology:

• Who was under pressure, who felt safe?
• Which fears, loyalties, resentments or loyalty conflicts play a role?
• How do personality structures influence statements, decisions and behaviour?

Examples:

• Incriminating or exonerating statements that arise more from fear or loyalty than from sober perception.
• People who feel responsible and “confess” more than they actually did.
• Executives who react out of resentment rather than cool analysis.

5. Causal level

The causal level focuses on the actual chains of cause and effect:

• What was truly causative for the incident – and what was merely incidental?
• Which factors had to coincide for the situation to arise?
• Which interventions would really have changed the situation – and which would have been mere symbolism?

Here the findings from the other four levels are distilled until it becomes clear:

• What was unavoidable?
• What would have been avoidable?
• Which causes must be changed in future so that the situation does not recur?

Backward & forward: origins and developments

Backward causality – the way back

Starting from today’s situation, looking backwards:

• How did we get here?
• Which chains of decisions led to the point we are at now?
• Where were the real points of no return?

The aim is to produce a reconstructed causal narrative that is robust – not merely told.

Forward risk architecture – the view ahead

Starting from today’s situation, looking forwards:

• Which scenarios are realistic?
• What happens if we do A – what if we do B – and what if we initially decide to do nothing?
• Which risks are legal, which are factual, which are political or reputational?

From this forward analysis emerges a decision architecture:

• Clients understand which paths exist,
• which consequences are likely for each path,
• and which path best fits their goals, values and tolerance for strain.

Hypothesis spaces instead of tunnel vision

A central element of the analytical lens is working with hypothesis spaces:

• The starting point is not just one version, but several conceivable versions of what might have happened.
• For each hypothesis we examine: what speaks in favour of it? What speaks against it?
• Which information would help to confirm or refute it?

This avoids committing too early to a “favourite story” – whether it belongs to the investigative authorities, the company or the public.

The analytical lens ensures that hypotheses are:

• consciously formed,
• kept transparent,
• and consistently tested.

Application in my fields of work

The analytical lens is the common mental framework across my three main fields: criminal law, internal investigations and aviation crime & crisis.

What this method is not

The analytical lens is not a cure-all – and it is deliberately neither “esoteric” nor mathematically inflated.

• It is not a mathematical model.
• It is not esotericism.
• It is not an attempt to make human behaviour fully predictable.

It is a working framework that:

• sorts complexity,
• reduces thinking errors,
• and makes decisions traceable.

It does not replace the client’s responsibility – but it makes this responsibility clearer and more sustainable.

What clients concretely gain from it

For clients – whether individuals, companies or organisations – this way of working brings:

• More clarity:
  You understand which factors were and are truly decisive.
• Better decisions:
  Options are not viewed in isolation, but in the light of their likely consequences.
• Fewer surprises:
  The most important scenarios are thought through in advance, not experienced for the first time in real time.
• Traceability:
  Decisions can later be explained – to boards, authorities and, where applicable, courts.

The analytical lens is thus the skeletal structure of my thinking – regardless of whether I am instructed in a particular case as a criminal defence lawyer, as a guide in an internal investigation or in an aviation crisis.

Contact