Panel · Template
Red Team Review.
LiveRed Team ReviewGive a plan to specialists whose job is to break it, and get back a verdict, each attack in its own terms, which attacks survive, what would have to be true for the plan to hold, and where it is weakest.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
When to use it
A plan, strategy or claim is about to go to a sponsor, a board or a regulator, and you want it attacked while there is still time to change it.
Who it is for. Leads who must defend a plan: access, regulatory, clinical, brand, evidence, quality and business development leads preparing a submission, a launch, a dossier or a deal.
Why a polished defense is the wrong output
A review is useful only if its output can change the plan. Red teaming is a set of critical-thinking techniques that aid decision-making and overcome bias, and a pre-mortem asks the team to imagine the plan already failed. This template asks each seat to attack from a real evidence base in its own discipline, shows which attacks survive a defense, and names the weakest point. It stays adversarial and does not offer a polished defense.1,3
What you get
The position under test, and a verdict. The plan as stated, and a one-sentence verdict on whether it survives, with the seats that doubt it.1
The challenges, by angle. Each seat attacks from its discipline, and each challenge rests on a cited fact or is marked as a gap. Angles are chosen in advance, and the report says which were covered.2,4
Which challenges survive. A table giving each challenge a status (refuted, partly answered, stands) with the defense that was or could be offered, and severity, likelihood and detectability shown separately and never multiplied.5
The pre-mortem, and what would have to be true. At Full depth, a narrated failure: the plan has failed, and why. At Standard and Full, the conditions that must hold for the plan to work.3
Mitigations, tripwires and the weakest point. A table of mitigations with the signal that triggers each, and a closing section naming the single point where the plan is weakest.
What is in it, by length
| Section | Brief | Standard | Comprehensive |
|---|---|---|---|
| The position under testThe plan, stated so it can be attacked | ● | ● | ● |
| VerdictWhether the plan survives, and who doubts it | ● | ● | ● |
| The challenges, by angleEach seat’s attacks, with the fact behind them | ● | ● | ● |
| Which challenges surviveThe status and scoring of each challenge | ● | ● | ● |
| The pre-mortemHow the plan failed, narrated in hindsight | – | – | ● |
| What would have to be trueThe conditions the plan relies on | – | ● | ● |
| Mitigations and tripwiresWhat to do, and the signal that says when | – | ● | ● |
| Where the position is weakestThe single weakest point | ● | ● | ● |
A Light review has three seats and about two pages. Standard has four seats and about four pages. Full has five seats and adds the pre-mortem.
Choosing a length
Choose Standard for most plans. Choose Full for a plan that is expensive to reverse, so you see the pre-mortem. Choose Light for a first pass.
The standards and practice behind it
The structure and the checks come from published practice in red teaming, intelligence analysis, risk engineering and safety assurance. These are the references we drew on and what we took from each. None of their authors has reviewed the template.
| What we took | From | Where it shows |
|---|---|---|
| Use critical-thinking techniques to aid decision-making and overcome bias, and make the output able to change the plan | The UK Ministry of Defence Red Teaming Handbook, third edition (2021)1 | The verdict and the closing section on the weakest point |
| Make arguments transparent by checking key assumptions and weighing competing hypotheses | The CIA Tradecraft Primer: structured analytic techniques (2009)2 | What would have to be true: the assumptions the plan relies on |
| Imagine the plan has failed and write down why, then revise the plan | Performing a Project Premortem (Gary Klein, Harvard Business Review, 2007)3 | The pre-mortem at Full depth |
| Use a stated list of attack categories so that coverage is deliberate | The STRIDE threat model (Microsoft)4 | Angles chosen in advance, with a note on which were covered |
| Score severity, occurrence and detection separately and rank by action priority, not by a multiplied number | The AIAG and VDA FMEA Handbook (2019), and ICH Q9 on quality risk management5 | Three scores shown apart, never multiplied |
What it will not do
It does not defend the plan. Defenses appear only as the status of an attack.
It does not invent an attack. Each challenge rests on a cited fact or is marked as a gap.
It is not a vote of human experts. Every seat is an AI specialist, and the report says so.
References
- [1] UK Ministry of Defence, Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre. Red Teaming Handbook, 3rd edition. June 2021. Described in the template research of 7 October 2026 from search results; the handbook was not read.
- [2] Central Intelligence Agency. A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis. March 2009. Known from search results; the primer was not read.
- [3] Klein, G. Performing a Project Premortem. Harvard Business Review, September 2007. Publisher page; the article is behind HBR’s paywall. The 30 percent figure quoted in secondary summaries is not used.
- [4] Microsoft. Threat modeling: the STRIDE categories (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information disclosure, Denial of service, Elevation of privilege). Known from Microsoft documentation; not read in full.
- [5] Automotive Industry Action Group and VDA. FMEA Handbook (AIAG & VDA), first edition, 2019; International Council for Harmonisation, ICH Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management. Links to the ICH quality guidelines page. The AIAG and VDA handbook is a paid publication and was not read; its replacement of the risk priority number by an action priority table is as described in secondary sources.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Panel service
Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.
Use cases for the Red Team Review
8 ready-to-run use cases. Each opens its own page with the question, the specialists, the standards and the references.
To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.