We Analyse
Critically
The police competency about using information well: what it means at level 1, where it is assessed, eight practice questions with what each one tests, an example answer structure and a free drill that trains the reading skill the OAC written exercise depends on.
Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 21 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated
It means using the best available information to make decisions: separating what matters from what does not, checking your assumptions, spotting gaps and conflicts and finding the real cause of a problem. In recruitment it is assessed in the OAC written exercise and the national sift, at level 1 of the 2024 CVF.
For police candidates in England and Wales. The descriptions paraphrase the College of Policing's 2024 Competency and Values Framework at level 1. The questions and example are PolicePay's own practice material, not College questions or model answers.
What 'we analyse critically' means at level 1
Our paraphrase of the College's 2024 framework at level 1, the level used for constable recruitment:
- thinking critically and challenging your own assumptions;
- taking in information accurately and in good time, separating relevant from irrelevant;
- solving problems by understanding why they happen, not only what happened;
- using professional knowledge and decision-making frameworks alongside your own judgement;
- noticing gaps and inconsistencies;
- keeping clear, accurate records.
At higher levels the competency moves to asking incisive questions of others, acting decisively on incomplete information with contingencies and organisation-wide analysis. Level 1 is about your own thinking.
Where it is assessed
| Stage | Assessed? |
|---|---|
| National sift: SJT and BSQ | Yes, both cover the six competencies |
| OAC: competency-based interview | Not on the College's list |
| OAC: written exercise | Yes |
| OAC: briefing exercise | Not on the College's list |
| Force interview | Depends on the force |
So the written exercise is where this competency matters most in the online assessment. Forces design their own in-person interviews and some use the CVF competencies, so practice questions are still worth preparing.
8 practice questions and what they test
| Question | What it is looking for |
|---|---|
| Tell us about a time you had to make a decision with incomplete information. | Acting sensibly on what you know, saying what you would check, not freezing. |
| Describe a time you noticed something did not add up. What did you do? | Spotting inconsistencies and checking before acting. |
| Tell us about a time you found the real cause of a recurring problem. | Looking beyond symptoms to why a problem happens. |
| Give an example of when you changed your mind after looking at the evidence. | Challenging your own assumptions. |
| Tell us about a time you had to sort important information from a lot of detail. | Separating relevant from irrelevant. |
| Describe a time when keeping an accurate record made a difference. | Clear, accurate records. |
| How would you approach a task where two people give you conflicting accounts? | A future-focused question: weighing evidence fairly and finding out more. |
| Tell us about a time you used a structured approach to make a decision. | Using a method alongside your judgement. |
Original practice questions. Answer them out loud with a timer; avoid writing scripts to memorise.
Try one out loud. Answer a practice question free and get a scored result in about a minute. No account. Practise in the free police mock interview
An example answer structure
Question: "Describe a time you noticed something did not add up. What did you do?" An illustrative STAR outline, not a script:
Situation: Working in a warehouse, the weekly stock report showed the same item short three weeks running.
Task: I was asked to update the report, not investigate, but the pattern did not make sense.
Action: I compared the delivery notes with the stock system for those weeks and found the delivery quantity was being entered as boxes, not units. I checked two more products to see whether it was wider, told my supervisor with the evidence and suggested a check at the point of entry.
Result: The entries were corrected, the "shortage" disappeared and the check was added. I learned to look for the cause before reporting a problem as fact.
The analysing critically evidence: noticing an inconsistency, checking before concluding, testing whether it was wider and finding the root cause.
Free drill: spot the gaps
The written exercise gives you four items of information and asks you to use only those. This drill practises the reading half: what is stated, where the items disagree and what is not there at all.
Free drill: spot the gaps
Anti-social behaviour at Station Road car park
For each statement, choose what the items say about it.
1. The car park barrier has not been in place since March.
2. The noise happens every night.
3. The noise continues until 2am.
4. The drivers are mostly young men from outside the area.
5. There have been 6 calls in 4 weeks.
6. CCTV could identify cars inside the car park.
7. The resident has complained five times.
8. Replacing the barrier would stop the problem.
Interview and assessment centre updates
New interview practice questions and model answers, by email
Leave your email and we will tell you when we publish new free interview practice questions and model answers, and when the assessment centre or interview format changes. Occasional emails, written by hand. Unsubscribe any time.
Sent by a person when there is news, not on a schedule. Unsubscribe any time. See our privacy policy.
How it shows in the written exercise
- Use the items accurately. Refer to them ("Item C shows...") rather than paraphrasing loosely.
- Name the conflicts. "The resident says every night; the call log shows only weekends."
- Say what you would check. A conflict is a reason to find out more, not to choose a side.
- Separate fact from claim. A complaint is an account, not proof.
- Add nothing. The College tells you not to add or invent information.
- Base recommendations on the evidence. Link each to the item that supports it.
Try a full timed written task in our mock: the written exercises are part of the 90-day pass and the interview is free.
Finding your own evidence
Places people find analysing critically examples, with no policing background:
- spotting an error in figures, a timetable, an invoice or a rota;
- working out why a recurring problem kept happening at work or home;
- checking a claim before passing it on;
- keeping records that later settled a dispute;
- making a decision by weighing options against clear criteria.
Map your examples to every CVF area with the free example bank builder.
Common mistakes
- Telling the story of the problem without showing how you worked out the cause.
- Jumping to a conclusion and calling it analysis.
- Choosing an example that is really about effort or teamwork.
- In the written exercise: summarising each item instead of analysing them together.
The College says notes or scripts prepared before the online assessment may result in automatic failure.
Level 1 compared with levels 2 and 3
| Level | Focus (our paraphrase of the 2024 framework) |
|---|---|
| Level 1 (recruitment) | Checking your own assumptions, interpreting information accurately, finding why problems happen, using decision-making frameworks, noticing gaps and inconsistencies, keeping accurate records. |
| Level 2 | Asking incisive questions to separate opinion from fact, acting on incomplete information with contingencies, weighing resource options. |
| Level 3 | Valuing analysis across the organisation, tackling root causes in ambiguous situations, using strategic context and long-term trends. |
Written exercise walk-through: from items to a recommendation
Take the first set from the drill above (the Station Road car park). A four-step method that turns four items into an analysed response:
- List what is stated. Six calls in four weeks (C); the barrier removed in March and not replaced (D); CCTV covers the entrance only (D); a resident has complained five times (B).
- List the conflicts. "Every night until 2am" (B) against calls on Fridays and Saturdays between 10pm and midnight (C).
- List what is missing. Who the drivers are; whether any offence has been reported; whether the council plans to replace the barrier.
- Write the recommendation from the evidence. "Patrols should focus on Friday and Saturday evenings, where the call log shows the problem, while we check with the resident whether it also happens on other nights. I recommend asking the council about the barrier, as Item D shows it has been missing since March."
Notice what the recommendation does not do: it does not describe the drivers, assume an offence or claim the barrier would solve everything. Each claim is tied to an item.
Weak and strong evidence, side by side
| Weak | Stronger |
|---|---|
| "I looked into it and fixed it." | "I compared the delivery notes with the system for three weeks and found the units were entered as boxes." |
| "I am very analytical." | "Before reporting the shortage I checked two other products to see if the problem was wider." |
| "The customer was obviously lying." | "The two accounts did not match, so I checked the receipt before deciding." |
| "I made a quick decision." | "I listed the three options against cost and safety and chose the one that kept the fire exit clear." |
| "I kept notes." | "My dated notes showed when the complaint was first made, which settled the dispute." |
Analysing critically in the SJT
The College's sift guidance asks you to base ratings solely on the information in each scenario. Analysing critically in the SJT usually means:
- rating "find out more" actions as at least reasonable when facts are unclear;
- rating actions that assume guilt, motive or danger the scenario does not state as low;
- rating actions that keep an accurate record as reasonable, not as paperwork for its own sake;
- still rating protective action highly when someone is at risk, even before every fact is known.
Practise the habit with the rate, don't rank trainer; its "confusing incident log" scenario turns on exactly this.
Follow-up questions a force panel might ask
- What information did you have and what was missing? (handling gaps)
- How did you check your assumption? (challenging yourself)
- What other options did you consider? (structured decisions)
- How did you know you had found the real cause? (root causes)
- How did you record what you did? (accurate records)
Forces set their own questions; these are practice probes.
Evidence checklist
- a decision made with incomplete information;
- an inconsistency you spotted and checked;
- the real cause of a recurring problem;
- a time you changed your mind because of evidence;
- important information picked out from a lot of detail;
- a record that made a difference later.
For the written exercise, a check before submitting: every recommendation tied to an item, every conflict named, nothing added.
What we could not verify
- How the College's assessors weigh this competency against the other three in the written exercise.
- Which forces use it in their in-person interviews. Forces set their own interview content.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does 'we analyse critically' mean in the police CVF?
It is one of the six competencies in the College of Policing's 2024 framework: using the best available information to make decisions and understand why problems happen, separating relevant from irrelevant information, checking your assumptions, noticing gaps and inconsistencies and keeping accurate records.
Where is 'we analyse critically' assessed in police recruitment?
In the online assessment process, the College lists it as one of the four areas the written exercise assesses. It is also one of the six competencies the national sift covers. It is not on the College's list for the online interview or briefing exercise.
What is a good example for 'we analyse critically'?
A real situation where you noticed information did not add up, checked it before acting and reached a better decision or found the cause of a problem. Examples from work, study or personal life all count; no policing experience is needed.
How do I show analysing critically in the written exercise?
Use the four items accurately, point out where they conflict or leave gaps, say what you would check and base your recommendations on what the items show. Do not invent information: the College tells you to use only what is provided.
What level of analysing critically is expected for constables?
Level 1, the practitioner level. It is about your own thinking and decisions: checking assumptions, interpreting information accurately and keeping clear records. Organisation-wide analysis belongs to higher levels.
Is 'analyse critically' the same as being critical of people?
No. It means thinking critically about information and evidence. Criticising people is not what the framework describes.
What does the free spot the gaps drill do?
It gives you four short items of information and eight statements. For each statement you decide whether it is stated in the items, whether the items disagree, or whether it is not in the items at all, then you see why. No account is needed and nothing is stored.
How do I spot conflicts in the OAC written exercise items?
Read all four items once for the story, then compare figures, dates, times and claims between them. Where two items disagree, say so in your response and say what you would check, rather than choosing one version.
Is it bad to say I would need more information?
No, if you still say what you would do now. Analysing critically at level 1 includes noticing gaps; the framework also expects you to act sensibly on what you know.
Does analysing critically mean using police procedures?
No. The College says you do not need to know law or police procedure for the online assessment. The framework mentions decision-making frameworks, but any structured, sensible approach to weighing information counts.
Sources and how we checked them
Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 21 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.
- College of Policing: Competency and values framework : we analyse critically as a 2024 competency, with three levels (accessed 21 October 2026)
- College of Policing: Online assessment process candidate guide (updated 21 July 2026) : assessed in the written exercise; use only the information provided; level 1 (accessed 21 October 2026)
- College of Policing: National sift candidate guidance (May 2026 PDF; page updated 1 June 2026) : SJT and BSQ cover the six competencies (accessed 21 October 2026)
On this topic elsewhere
More in this guide series
Free tools for applicants
Disclaimer
PolicePay.co.uk is an independent guide. It is not affiliated with the College of Policing, the Home Office or any police force and it does not recruit, vet or assess applicants. Recruitment standards, assessment formats and vetting decisions are set by the College of Policing and each force and change from time to time: check the force you are applying to before relying on anything here. Details apply to England and Wales unless stated. Details are as checked on 21 October 2026.