We Analyse Critically (Level 1)

What “We Analyse Critically” Means (CVF 2024)

In CVF 2024, we analyse critically means analysing diverse information and the best available evidence to make effective decisions. It includes considering different perspectives, understanding implications, avoiding jumping to conclusions, weighing risk and benefit, and using information carefully.

This competency is the opposite of two common failures:

1. Reckless certainty — acting on a gut feeling, stereotype, or partial story as if it were proven fact.
2. Paralysis — gathering information forever when a proportionate decision is already required for safety or duty.

Critical analysis is not academic essay writing. For a Level 1 practitioner, it is the habit of asking: What do I actually know? What am I assuming? What else should I check? What happens if I choose option A versus B?

Why This Competency Matters in Policing Recruitment

Policing decisions affect liberty, safety, trust, and fairness. Even at entry level, poor analysis can escalate a situation unnecessarily, miss a vulnerable person, or act on biased rumour. The national sift does not test criminal law knowledge, but it does test whether your judgement looks evidence-minded:

• Do you seek relevant facts before heavy-handed action when the scenario allows?
• Do you notice contradictions or missing information?
• Do you consider more than one option and the likely outcomes?
• Do you resist treating gossip as evidence?

A classic official-style pattern (for example community anti-social behaviour concerns) rewards information-gathering and proportionate enquiry before jumping straight to the most punitive or forceful option when no offence is clearly established in the scenario. That does not mean “never act.” It means match the strength of your action to the strength of your information and the risk present.

Level 1 Style Behaviours (Recognition Table)

Core Meaning Broken Down

1. Diverse information and best available evidence

“Best available” recognises that you rarely have perfect information. Critical analysis means using what you can reasonably obtain, not waiting for omniscience. It also means not cherry-picking only the facts that support your first impression.

On the SJT, if an action ignores key facts already stated in the scenario, rate it lower. If an action seeks missing information that would change the decision and the scenario does not show immediate danger requiring instant force, that information-seeking often rates higher.

2. Different perspectives and implications

A resident, a young person, a business owner, and a colleague may each hold part of the picture. Considering perspectives is not “everyone is equally right.” It is refusing to treat one loud voice as the whole truth. Implications include short-term calm versus long-term trust, escalation risk, and whether a vulnerable person is hidden in the noise.

3. Avoid jumping to conclusions

Jumping to conclusions often looks decisive and therefore “police-like” to unprepared candidates. Under CVF analysis, unsupported leaps are weak. Decisive and evidence-based is the goal.

4. Weigh risk and benefit

Critical analysis includes risk thinking: what is the harm of acting now, and what is the harm of delay? A high-risk scenario (clear immediate danger) justifies faster action with the information you have. A low-clarity, lower-imminent-harm scenario justifies more enquiry first.

5. Use information carefully

Careful use means accuracy, confidentiality where relevant, and not spreading unverified claims. It also means updating your view when new facts appear—stubbornness is not analysis.

How This Competency Appears on the SJT

Actions that often rate higher (analyse-critically aligned)

• Asking relevant questions before choosing an intrusive option when no clear offence or imminent harm is established
• Checking facts already available (what was said, by whom, what was observed)
• Considering alternative explanations and proportionate options
• Pausing a rushed plan that rests on assumption or rumour
• Explaining a decision by reference to known information and risk
• Seeking advice or specialist input when complexity exceeds your knowledge—while still owning the need to progress

Actions that often rate lower (analysis failures)

• Acting on incomplete information when a short check was possible and risk did not forbid it
• Ignoring facts the scenario already gave you
• Treating rumour, stereotype, or a single unverified claim as proof
• Choosing the harshest option purely to “show authority” without an evidence basis
• Freezing indefinitely when the scenario shows clear need for timely action
• Inventing facts that are not in the scenario to justify a preferred option

Official-style ASB / community concern pattern

Many candidates over-enforce. If the scenario describes community concern about behaviour but does not establish a clear offence or immediate danger, actions that:

• listen and gather information,
• engage proportionately,
• consider multi-agency or problem-solving angles where appropriate,
• avoid unnecessary criminalisation based on assumption,

often align better with critical analysis (and with public service and respect) than actions that jump straight to the most punitive response.

Conversely, if the scenario does show clear risk or a clear need to protect someone now, an action that only “makes notes for later” while harm continues is not good analysis—it is avoidance dressed up as thoughtfulness.

Balance Trap: Over-Analysis vs Recklessness

Hold both ends of the scale:

Critical analysis is a quality of decision-making, not a requirement to delay every decision forever.

Common Traps for Candidates

1. Equating speed with competence. Fast wrong decisions are not analytical excellence.
2. Equating delay with intelligence. Slow inaction under clear risk is not clever.
3. Importing TV policing. You do not need to “crack the case” with illegal shortcuts; you need proportionate, fact-based judgement.
4. Assuming the loudest complainant is always fully correct. Listen, but still check.
5. Assuming the complained-about person is always fully wrong. Same rule.
6. Writing law essays in your head. The sift is not testing statute recall; it is testing whether you use information given carefully.

Mini Scenarios (Recognition Practice)

Scenario A — Incomplete ASB report

A resident demands that “those youths” be arrested for anti-social behaviour. The scenario gives limited detail and no clear offence description.

Scenario B — Conflicting accounts

Two colleagues give different versions of an incident. You must decide a next step.

Scenario C — Clear immediate risk

The scenario indicates someone is at clear, immediate risk of harm.

Linking Analyse Critically to Values and Other Competencies

• Public service: better analysis protects the right people in the right way.
• Respect and empathy: checking facts reduces unfair treatment driven by stereotype.
• Courage: sometimes analysis means admitting you do not know yet, or challenging a popular but unsupported plan.
• We take ownership: analysis should lead to a decision you can own, not endless deferral for its own sake.
• We are innovative and open-minded: good analysis often surfaces alternative options (see next section).
• We are emotionally aware: strong emotion in yourself or others is data about impact—not a substitute for evidence.

Mental Model for Live SJT Rating

For each action, ask:

1. What facts does the scenario actually give?
2. What is still unknown, and does the action care?
3. Is the response proportionate to evidence and risk?
4. Does the action rely on rumour, bias, or assumption?
5. If delay is involved, is it useful enquiry or avoidance?

Rate higher where the action uses information carefully and weighs outcomes. Rate lower for fact-ignoring haste, rumour-based force, or freeze when protection is required.