assess-and-explain-threat

Assess And Explain Threat

Overview

Turn mixed evidence into a proportionate conclusion and advice the affected person can follow. Do not collapse signatures, reputation, scanner output, or unusual behavior into a binary safe/malicious verdict.

Read references/confidence-and-advice.md for conclusion vocabulary and the explanation shape.

Workflow

1. Restate the decision.

   • Identify what the user must decide now and what can wait for more evidence.

2. Grade evidence by directness.

   • Separate direct observations, reproducible behaviors, vendor or threat-intelligence claims, weak indicators, absence of findings, and speculation.
   • Record contradicting evidence and coverage gaps.

3. Assess behavior and impact.

   • State what access, execution, persistence, collection, credential use, network behavior, or data exposure is observed or technically plausible.
   • Distinguish capability from intent and artifact presence from successful compromise.

4. Choose a calibrated classification.

   • Use one classification from the reference and state confidence separately.
   • Name the strongest supporting evidence and what would change the conclusion.

5. Give proportionate advice.

   • Put urgent harm-reduction actions first.
   • Separate containment, evidence preservation, recovery, credential actions, notification, and long-term hardening.
   • Avoid destructive cleanup when evidence is weak and reversible isolation is available.

6. Give a plain-language explanation.

   • Answer whether the concern is dangerous, what it appears to do, what is known versus inferred, what to do now, and when to escalate.
   • Define specialist terms at first use and avoid fear-amplifying language.

Output

Return the conclusion, confidence, decisive evidence, contradictions/gaps, immediate actions, follow-up analysis, and a short non-specialist explanation.