Perspective

I was going to write a long article; instead, I’ll use the research I did via Grok.

It covers just about everything I was going to say.

Here’s the standard framework used by intelligence professionals (CIA, DIA, Five Eyes, etc.) to evaluate source reliability:

Core Factors (in rough order of importance)

1. Source Access
   How close is the source to the actual information? (Direct access > second-hand > rumor)

2. Past Track Record
   Has this source been accurate before? (Proven reliable vs. untested vs. previously wrong)

3. Corroboration
   Is the information supported by independent sources? (Single-source = weak)

4. Motivation & Bias
   Why is the source providing this? Money, ideology, revenge, disinformation?

5. Consistency
   Does it match known facts and previous reliable reporting?

6. Specificity & Detail
   Vague claims are low value; highly detailed claims that can be tested are higher value.

7. Timeliness
   Fresh information is more valuable than old.

8. Technical Factors (if applicable)
   For imagery, signals, etc.: resolution, chain of custody, technical limitations.

Standard Reliability Rating Scale (used by most agencies)

• A = Completely reliable
• B = Usually reliable
• C = Fairly reliable
• D = Not usually reliable
• E = Unreliable
• F = Reliability cannot be judged

Credibility Evaluation (Information Credibility / Confidence Scale)

This is the second half of the standard intelligence evaluation system (paired with Source Reliability A–F).

Credibility of the Information (1–6 scale)

How the Two Scales Combine

The final rating is usually written as Source Reliability – Information Credibility

Examples:

• B-2 = Usually reliable source reporting information that is probably true
• A-1 = Completely reliable source with confirmed information (highest confidence)
• D-4 = Not usually reliable source reporting doubtful information (very low confidence)

This combined rating is how intelligence agencies communicate how much weight to give a piece of intel.

Here is a professional intelligence-style evaluation of the Iranian claim:

Claim Being Evaluated

“US or Israeli airstrikes deliberately or directly hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran on February 28, 2026.”

1. Source Reliability (A–F Scale)

Rating: E – Unreliable

Reasoning:

• Source: Iranian government + state-controlled media (IRIB, IRNA, Iranian military spokesmen).
• Past track record: Extremely poor when attributing blame to the US or Israel. Iran has a long history of false or exaggerated attributions in military incidents.
• Motivation/Bias: Extremely high incentive to shift blame away from any possible Iranian misfire or collateral damage, especially since the school is located immediately adjacent to an IRGC military facility.
• Access: High physical access to the site, but this does not overcome the severe bias and history of disinformation.
• Corroboration: Zero independent corroboration from any non-Iranian source.

2. Information Credibility (1–6 Scale)

Rating: 4 – Doubtful

Reasoning:

• The physical damage to the school is confirmed (multiple independent outlets have geolocated photos/video of the rubble).
• However, the attribution (that a US or Israeli weapon caused it) has no independent verification.
• Strong alternative explanation exists: the school is right next to a known IRGC base that was a legitimate military target during the strikes.
• No weapon fragments, crater analysis, or munition signatures have been publicly presented by Iran that would support a US/Israeli strike.
• Timing and location make an Iranian missile misfire or collateral damage from striking the nearby military target at least as plausible (and in many analysts’ view, more plausible).

Final Combined Assessment

E-4

Translation:
Unreliable source reporting doubtful information.

Bottom-line confidence: Very low

The Iranian claim that a US or Israeli airstrike directly hit the school should be treated with extreme skepticism until independent evidence (such as weapon forensics, satellite imagery showing the strike, or admission by US/Israel) emerges.

Commentary

I’ve been doing this type of analysis for years on just about everything I hear or read. I just didn’t formalize it. My wife has difficulty with this sort of analysis. Her go-to is “everybody says”.

For her, this means checking with multiple media sources to see what the media sources are saying.

And all the media sources are reporting what the Iranian regime is saying. Thus “everybody is saying.”. What she misses is that all are reporting the same thing, Iran said.

The response from the US and Israel just isn’t nearly as interesting. “We are aware of the situation and are looking into it.”

You will sometimes find this in textbooks. All the textbooks report the same thing. That’s because they all reference the same sources. Those sources in turn might only have a single reference.