Key takeaways
- Source relevance depends on actual proximity to the question and period, not status alone.
- Several people may repeat one account; independence needs explanation rather than a simple source count.
- Permission, appropriate handling and source limitations belong in the commission before information is collected.
Define a human source by the knowledge relevant to the task
In commercial HUMINT, a human source is a person whose knowledge may help answer a defined business question. The person might understand a market, have participated in a relevant project or possess direct knowledge of a commercial relationship. None of those descriptions guarantees that every statement they make is current, independent or accurate.
The distinction matters when a client asks about a supplier, investment or disputed transaction. Someone familiar with the sector may explain normal commercial practice but know nothing about the specific company. Someone who worked on an earlier project may understand that period without being able to describe the present position.
Our guide to commercial HUMINT explains how human accounts become one input to a commissioned assessment. A person's account is not automatically an agency finding, and the size of a provider's claimed network does not establish that relevant knowledge is available for the actual question.
Start by specifying what needs explaining. The source context can then be evaluated against that requirement instead of accepting a broad claim that the provider knows well-connected people.
Ask how the person could know the specific matter
Source proximity means the connection between the person and the claimed knowledge. Did they observe the event, participate in the relevant process, review an appropriate record or repeat someone else's description? Each can offer useful information, but the report should not treat them as interchangeable.
| Perspective | Potential contribution | Limit to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Project participant | First-hand context about identified events | Which events and dates were actually within their view? |
| Sector specialist | Interpretation of market practice | Do they know the subject or only the wider industry? |
| Former commercial counterpart | Experience of a past relationship | Is that experience relevant to the current question? |
| Person repeating an account | A lead or explanation to test | What is the original source, if known? |
Record the period and the limits of the account. A source may be precise about one meeting and uncertain about a later decision. The appropriate response is to preserve that distinction, not to extend the person's credibility to all connected events.
A client should receive enough context to assess relevance without demanding unnecessary private identifying information in every report version.
Consider common origins and interests without stereotyping people
Several accounts are not necessarily independent. People may rely on the same meeting, article, colleague or business rumour. Agreement between them may reflect a common origin rather than separate observations. Ask the provider to explain whether that dependence is known, possible or unresolved.
Interests also affect interpretation. A person may have a current commercial relationship, an unresolved disagreement or an incentive to emphasise a particular outcome. That does not make the account false. It means the claim should be examined against the person's proximity, supporting material and alternative explanations.
The public PHIA standards identify source quality, currency and information gaps as analytical considerations. They offer a benchmark for evaluating reasoning, not a government credential for commercial providers.
Avoid categorical assumptions that former staff are unreliable, senior people are authoritative on everything or critics must be dishonest. Evaluate the actual statement and evidence. Where a relationship or interest is relevant, the report should explain how it affects the finding rather than using an unexplained label to dismiss or endorse the person.
Use documents to test what an account does and does not establish
A human account can explain context absent from a public filing, while a dated record can test part of the account. Neither automatically replaces the other. A filing may identify a director without explaining a particular commercial decision. A source may describe influence without establishing registered ownership.
Fictional illustration: an invented source says fictional Distributor A had a formal relationship with fictional Supplier B during a past project. A simulated filing establishes one shared director, but no simulated contract is available. All people, entities and records in this example are invented.
The shared director supports a corporate connection. It does not by itself confirm the claimed contract, and the source account does not establish its terms. A useful assessment states those separate findings and the missing evidence rather than merging them into “the partnership is verified”.
The OSINT and HUMINT service comparison addresses this combined evidence task. Ask how the provider will reconcile source accounts with available documents and report conflicts, including findings that weaken the client's initial hypothesis.
Set boundaries for appropriate participation and use
Commercial enquiries should have an agreed purpose, permitted methods and handling arrangements. The client should ask how the provider respects participation, confidentiality and third-party obligations rather than treating willingness to talk as permission to disclose any information.
The MRS Code sets participation and transparency requirements within its research and membership context. It is a useful professional reference for discussing responsible enquiries, but it does not mean that every HUMINT agency is an MRS member or that all commercial intelligence work is governed by the same research code.
Where personal information is recorded, the ICO's accuracy guidance makes the distinction between factual information and attributed opinions important. A negative opinion should not appear in the report as an established personal allegation after its source and context are removed.
Agree the necessary source description, intended audience and limits on identifying details. The confidentiality guide covers those handling decisions. Source protection should preserve a qualified explanation, not become a reason to make the account impossible to assess.
Review source relevance before choosing the next step
A practical client checklist asks:
- What specific question could this source help answer?
- Was their knowledge direct, reported or interpretative?
- Which period and part of the business did they know?
- Could apparently separate accounts share an origin?
- What relevant interests or limitations were considered?
- Which documents or independent facts test the account?
- How are gaps and conflicting information reported?
When comparing commercial HUMINT services, ask how the proposed team will explain these points for the actual assignment. A promise of numerous contacts is less useful than a clear account of relevance, lawful methods and what the evidence may remain unable to establish.
The next step may be a focused document request, a qualified finding or no further enquiry. More accounts do not automatically resolve a weak evidence base. What matters is whether the material improves the decision without exceeding what the sources could reasonably know.