Beyond the Binary: A New Typology for Evaluating Warning Success and Failure in Strategic Surprise

Why do some intelligence warning processes succeed in anticipating surprise while others fail? This article challenges the binary perspective on warning success and warning failure prevalent in extant analyses, which it contends ignores the complexity of warning processes and their outcomes. Its main thesis is that warning success rather exists on a spectrum of outcomes from full success to complete failure. To support this argument, this article introduces a novel, multidimensional typology that captures warning outcomes on such a spectrum, aligning with approaches to measuring (foreign) policy success within political science and public administration. It dissects warning effectiveness into three dimensions: the analytical (accuracy and timeliness of threat understanding), process (effectiveness of warning communication), and political dimensions (degree of decision-maker receptivity). Inherent tensions and challenges within these dimensions are expected to produce trade-offs, where success in one dimension may not ensure success in others. By applying this typology to three illustrative case studies—the COVID-19 pandemic warning in the United Kingdom, the Russian interference in the 2016 US election campaign, and the EU's warning process preceding the Crimea annexation—this paper demonstrates that warning performance often varies significantly across the three dimensions, highlighting the trade-offs and conflicts that can occur. This typology challenges existing binary paradigms and enables a more comprehensive understanding of warning effectiveness. This may inform targeted, adaptive, and effective security policy responses, in addition to improving our understanding of strategic surprise anticipation and warning strategies.