FBI Phase 2 Writing Test Guide
The FBI Phase 2 writing assessment evaluates your ability to synthesize complex information, construct logical arguments, and produce clear, evidence-based analytical writing under time pressure. This guide breaks down the structure, frameworks, and strategies you need to excel.
What Is the Phase 2 Writing Test?
The FBI Phase 2 writing test is a timed analytical exercise designed to assess a candidate's ability to process dense, often contradictory information and produce a structured, objective evaluation. Unlike creative writing assessments, Phase 2 rewards precision, restraint, and disciplined reasoning.
You are presented with a set of case documents — typically 8 files including memoranda, threat assessments, site dossiers, logistics analyses, IT evaluations, and financial clarifications. Your task is to review all documents and produce a bulleted 6-step evaluation plan that shows how you would systematically assess the options presented. Critically, you must not state a final decision; the goal is to demonstrate your analytical process, not to render a verdict.
This mirrors real FBI investigative work: agents rarely have complete information, must weigh competing priorities (cost, security, speed, capacity), and must document their reasoning so others can audit and continue the analysis.
Analytical Report Structure
The expected output is a 6-step bulleted plan. Each step should be a single, actionable statement beginning with a strong action verb. Think of it as a procedural roadmap another agent could follow.
Establish Mandatory Criteria
Review the Director's memo and identify the non-negotiable thresholds: budget ceilings, timeline constraints (e.g., 90 calendar days), minimum square footage, security requirements. List each threshold explicitly so every option can be filtered against it.
Map Each Option Against Hard Constraints
Take each candidate site and verify whether it satisfies every mandatory criterion from Step 1. If a site fails a hard constraint (e.g., exceeds the 90-day operational window), note it as nonresponsive regardless of other favorable characteristics.
Identify and Flag Risk Vectors
Review CI threat assessments, logistics reports, and IT evaluations to surface security, transportation, and cyber risks. Distinguish between avoidable risks (where comparable alternatives exist) and inherent trade-offs.
Evaluate Cost Within Exception Frameworks
Compare each site's all-in cost against the base budget. If a site exceeds the ceiling, verify whether it qualifies for a documented exception (e.g., under-budget on time AND within the authorized exception percentage).
Assess Operational Readiness and Secondary Factors
Evaluate pre-existing infrastructure (dedicated fiber, access controls), drive-time logistics, and any dependencies that could delay activation. Note favorable characteristics that do not independently control selection but add context.
Synthesize Findings and Outline Decision Prerequisites
Summarize which sites are responsive, which are disqualified, and what additional approvals or information would be required before a final selection can be made. Do not render the final decision itself.
Key formatting rule
Every bullet must begin with an action verb ("Review," "Compare," "Verify," "Assess," "Flag," "Synthesize"). Avoid narrative paragraphs. The FBI values brevity and procedural clarity.
The Means, Motive & Opportunity Framework
While the 6-step site-selection plan focuses on procedural evaluation, the broader FBI Phase 2 and Phase 3 assessments frequently require you to apply the Means, Motive, and Opportunity (MMO) framework — the classic investigative triad used to evaluate suspects, sites, and scenarios.
Did the person (or site) have the physical or logistical capability to carry out the action? For suspects: access to tools, keys, or systems. For site selection: sufficient square footage, existing infrastructure, budget reach.
Was there a compelling reason? Financial pressure, ideological alignment, personal grievance, or institutional imperative. In site selection, this maps to strategic necessity: why this location, why now?
Was the window of action actually available? For suspects: alibis, badge logs, camera footage. For sites: timeline compliance, permit schedules, contractor availability.
In the Phase 3 comprehensive analytical report, you will evaluate individuals of interest using this exact framework. The trap most candidates fall into is weighting one pillar more heavily than the evidence supports. For example, a strong financial motive (Motive) does not override an ironclad alibi (Opportunity). The correct conclusion requires all three pillars to align — and even then, you must caveat your confidence level based on evidentiary gaps.
When writing, explicitly state the facts that support or undermine each pillar. Use neutral language: "The evidence suggests…" rather than "Obviously…" or "Clearly…" Confidence without evidence is a disqualifier.
Documented Evidence Only — No Invention
This is the single most important rule. Every statement in your report must be traceable to a specific document, log entry, or explicit fact provided in the case file. Inventing facts — even plausible ones — is an automatic credibility failure.
Examples of evidence-based reasoning:
- "Site Bravo requires 30 calendar days to activate, which satisfies the 90-day mandate (Doc 4)."
- "David Cole possessed the master key used to override the camera at 23:00 (Doc 5)."
- "Sarah Jenkins's badge log shows entry at 01:10 on 12 MAY, after both the data dump and camera override (Doc 2)."
Examples of invented reasoning (do not use):
- "Facility A will require attendees to bring umbrellas due to heavy rain." (Not in the documents.)
- "David Cole seemed nervous during his interview." (No interview document provided.)
- "Site Bravo is the safer option because it is closer to headquarters." (Proximity was never flagged as a security factor.)
Penalty
AI and human graders penalize invented facts heavily. A single unsupported inference can drop your score by multiple points because it signals either sloppy reading or deliberate embellishment — both are disqualifying traits in investigative work.
Time Management Under Pressure
You have 45 minutes to read 8 documents and produce a polished 6-step plan. That sounds generous until you realize some documents are densely formatted, contain embedded tables, and contradict each other in subtle ways.
| Phase | Time | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Read & Annotate | 0–12 min | Skim all 8 documents. Highlight hard constraints, dollar figures, timeline references, and disqualifying facts. Do not write yet. |
| Structure | 12–18 min | Draft your 6 steps as single-sentence bullets with action verbs. Ensure each step maps to at least one document. |
| Detail & Evidence | 18–32 min | Flesh out each step with specific document references. Add parenthetical citations (Doc 3, Doc 7). Check for invented facts. |
| Review & Polish | 32–40 min | Read your plan aloud mentally. Fix grammar, ensure no final decision is stated, and verify all constraints were addressed. |
| Buffer | 40–45 min | Submit. If time remains, do a final scan for double negatives, subject-verb disagreement, and Spanish-to-English transfer errors. |
The most common time-management failure is over-reading. Candidates get lost in the nuance of a single document and burn 20 minutes on what should take 4. Train yourself to extract only three things from each document: constraints, risks, and dollar figures. Everything else is context.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Rendering a Final Decision
The prompt explicitly says: 'DO NOT state a final decision.' Violating this is an automatic structural failure.
Narrative Paragraphs Instead of Bullets
Use single-sentence action-verb bullets. The FBI values procedural clarity over prose elegance.
Inventing Facts to Fill Gaps
If the documents don't say it, you can't say it. Mark the gap and move on.
Ignoring the 'No-Decision' Constraint
Even if one site is obviously superior, your job is to outline the evaluation process, not crown a winner.
Grammar Errors from Language Transfer
Watch for double negatives ('does not have no'), missing subjects ('Is important to note'), and preposition errors ('Based in' vs 'Based on').
Overweighting Minor Complaints
The Director's memo often states that minor complaints (vending, parking, odors) shall be documented but shall not independently control selection.
How to Practice Effectively
Reading about the test is not enough. You need to simulate the pressure. The Obsidian UDA diagnostic platform recreates the full three-phase exam environment — including the 8-document Phase 2 sprint and the comprehensive Phase 3 analytical report — and provides AI-generated feedback on your structure, evidence anchoring, grammar, and reasoning.
Effective practice follows this loop:
- Take a timed diagnostic to identify your baseline weaknesses under pressure.
- Review the AI analysis for invented facts, grammar errors, and structural gaps.
- Target one weakness per session — e.g., action-verb bullet construction or evidence citation.
- Re-test after 2–3 targeted sessions to measure improvement.
Ready to practice?
The Obsidian UDA diagnostic simulates the full FBI Phase 2 and Phase 3 exam environment with AI-powered grading and personalized feedback on your analytical writing.