This is a companion piece to my on-going story called Chuck vs. the Journal, also hosted on this site. That piece contains Chuck's journal, which he was required to write by the government, to evaluate his mental well-being. This story contains the analysis of that story's journal. It won't make sense unless you've read the journal.
Case #:
Date: Dec. 8, 2008
Background: Dr. Kazlowski and Dr. Foreman are two of the top government agency psychiatrists, each having an MD and a PhD. They have worked with interrogations, agent reclamations after torture, and a number of other activities that uniquely qualify them to evaluate the mental health and stability of the human Intersect. They both had "eyes only" clearance before this project.
To protect the human Intersect, additional security measures were taken. The doctors were subjected to additional polygraph tests. All names were shrouded before passing the journal on, but they have been unshrouded for this report. The basic relations – sister, co-worker, boss, handler – and basic individuals in those roles were provided prior to the journal.
The doctors were only told the bare minimum – that the subject is an intelligence asset who is invaluable but is being left free for various reasons. Sketches of some previous missions and our analysis of his relationships were also provided.
Report:
Abstract: Using civilians as intelligence assets or as agents has a checkered past. Often, agency's greatest highs and lowest lows can be tracked to the mercurial mental state of untrained, undisciplined individuals. We examine another such case. No immediate red flags are present, but the financial situation and a relationship with a handler bear close watching.
Introduction: Initial data given to us about the subject indicates that he has three close relations, his sister, Ellie, his best friend, Morgan, and his handler, Agent Walker. He has been effectively coerced into working with the government while maintaining a pre-existing near-minimum-wage job. Our only interaction with the subject is through a series of journal entries. He is being required to log at least 500 words daily for a month.
Studies of this nature have been performed before (c.f., [1][4]) and the methodology is well established [3]. Over time, most subjects will gradually come to look at the journal as a source of comfort and a trusted outlet. The lack of feedback gives an illusion of lack of interest, which creates feelings of relaxation and disclosure of more details. Rarely does a subject reveal anything distinctly treasonous, but the general state-of-mind and potential sources of leverage are frequently revealed.
The eventual goal of this study is to provide a fuller understanding of the subject's general state-of-mind. Typically, we have been able to provide a list of recommendations at the end of the report, to increase the likelihood that the asset will perform more in-line with the expectations of our agencies.
Methodology: We analyze the word selection, the language and the emotional tenor of each entry. We compare his scores on multiple criteria against established mean and median values, to produce initial evidence of outliers. Additionally, we cross-reference some of the final scores against a database of journals created by agents, civilians, and other sources, to find common references. The individuals who most closely match the subject are examined and a general trend line from their performance has been shown to closely correlate with additional subjects [4].
We also read each entry multiple times and brainstorm about possible interpretations. While the psychological field has become reasonably adept at predicting overall changes and trends in society, specific individuals continue to resist efforts to accurately predict. We try to consider all possible outcomes and then prune away those which are deemed to be least likely. This process is too premature to report, at this point. We must wait until more data is acquired, to not bias ourselves or others.
Initial Observations: After eight days of entries, we generally do not learn much. All information contained in this report should be considered tenuous, at best. Previous experience has taught us that a subject is usually quite reticent to expose any real emotions until time has dulled defenses and the monotony of the journal has become so ingrained that the subject chooses his words less carefully.
We can deduce a few things from the initial entries, however. First, the fact that each entry is precisely 500 words tells us that the subject is very exacting of himself. It is more difficult to write exactly 500 words than to write a small number over 500. We also believe that this is an act of defiance against the strictures being placed around his life – he is making it clear that he will only do the minimum amount required, even if it takes longer. Current data indicates that this appears to be a healthy outlet for rebellion, but we must consider the possibility of less healthy alternatives, as well. We believe the risk of flight for this subject is higher than normal, because of this factor.
Second, the subject is obviously hiding something about Agent Walker. His other handler, Agent Casey, is mentioned a total of 4 times on 3 different days, including reasonably personal references that indicate the subject considers Agent Casey to be a friend. However, Agent Walker is not mentioned at all. Something in their relationship is causing the subject to not mention her. We believe her omission to be deliberate, considering the style of the entries and the mentions of so many other individuals by name. No fewer than 11 potential links to her were discovered in the first 8 days, without mention. The initial data given to us [2] indicated that they were close and involved in a cover relationship. Without additional information except his repeated protestations to protect everyone, we can only hypothesize that he is trying to protect Agent Walker. However, it may be that he is angry with her, does not work well with her, or any of a host of other causes. We also have no indication about the type of protection he may believe he is providing. Any guess would be pure speculation at this point and should be dismissed until more data is forthcoming. This situation bears very close watching in the future.
Third, people are very important to the subject. He mentions 10 different personal relations by name (Jill, Ellie, Captain Awesome, Morgan, Jeff, Lester, Anna, Casey, Dad, and Lou), several repeatedly. His closest relationship appears to be with his sister, Ellie, and his best friend, Morgan. They are both mentioned on 6 different days – he with 12 references by names and she with 8. These are obviously relationships from which he draws strength and severing either of them would probably have a negative impact on his efficacy.
Fourth, the subject's reticence to the journal project is already starting to wane. He is starting to provide details about his thoughts and feelings. If he continues on this trend, we will be able to do a fuller evaluation of his mental health and stability. This opening up is occurring earlier than is normal. However, it is not unprecedented. We, of course, will consider the fact that he is making up emotions/feelings which he believes will be acceptable. No indicators, other than the earliness of the appearance of emotions, point to falsifying records, at this point, but we will continue to monitor.
Fifth, the danger of financial compromise of the subject must be considered. On two separate occasions, the subject has bemoaned his lack of funds and the ability to do what he wants financially. Monetary bribes are often the easiest for enemies to make. Studies have also shown that they are the easiest to internally justify. Since the subject seems to be interested in helping other people, financial bribes would seem to be a fruitful avenue for those bent on using him to pursue. Additional information on his financial situation would be valuable, if it can be procured and communicated without endangering individuals.
Overall, we find no immediate cause for alarm. The relationship with Agent Walker and the financial factors bear close watching, however.
References:
[1] Foreman, Hernandez, and Wang. "Case study ab8f9239b1abb77e4055399eca84e36." CIA special report. May, 2003.
[2] Government Report 333722 "Initial Data on Case 32e227bb8df8f072d6dcdf9170344e10." November, 2008.
[3] Kazlowski. "Revised Method for Studying Subjects Without Interaction". NSA Brief. September, 1989.
[4] Kazlowski, et al., "Case study e01dbf1fd928b6195620154a358bf34c." NSA Special Report, March, 1999.
Author's Challenge: Anybody who can figure out the Case Study Numbers and can determine who the individuals in the other studies are will get significant respect from me and a cameo in future writing, if desired.