In derivative classification, contained in means the classified information is directly identifiable from authorized guidance without added interpretation; revealed by means analysis or deduction is needed. The difference follows meaning, not matching words. A clear paraphrase can still be contained in, while indirect wording can reveal the same protected fact.

How do revealed by and contained in differ in derivative classification?

Contained in applies when you can identify the classified information directly. Revealed by applies when you must reason from what the new text communicates to recover the protected information. Both concern applying an authorized classification decision; neither grants authority to invent a new decision.

A useful workplace test is to state the protected fact in plain language, identify the guide element covering it, and explain how the proposed draft communicates it. If you cannot show that connection, get clarification before assigning a level or treating the material as ready for release.

For contractor personnel, 32 CFR 117.13(b)(1)-(2) ties derivative decisions to already classified information and authorized sources. The broader NISPOM contractor framework supplies the employer context; the task at your desk is to connect the particular information to the applicable guidance.

What guide and training assumptions will stay fixed?

Use an invented guide that treats a fictional team’s assigned route as Secret. Assume the team has exactly a single assigned route, selected from Harbor or Ridge, and that authorized source material confirms Harbor. These assumptions stay fixed while the proposed wording changes.

Unclassified training example: Harbor, Ridge, the team, and the guide are fictional. The assumed level illustrates the reasoning only. It is not a determination about real routes, schedules, personnel, or operations, and no real classified information appears below.

Assume also that the route names alone are unclassified in the fictional guide. What the guide protects is the team’s assignment. This distinction matters: a list of possible labels does not necessarily communicate which label applies to a particular team.

Prepare these training drafts: a direct statement of the assignment, an indirect statement that excludes the alternative, and a generic sentence about travel. Keep the underlying source decision unchanged. That lets you isolate what the reader learns from each draft.

Why is the direct statement contained in?

The draft states the protected assignment without requiring the reader to infer an unstated result. Compare the claim with the source: both identify Harbor as the assigned route. The relevant decision carries forward even if the draft uses different sentence structure.

A paraphrase such as “Harbor is the route assigned to the team” communicates the same fact directly. It does not become revealed by merely because the word order changed. Distinguish rewriting from deduction.

On a real task, keep the source portion or guide element available while drafting. The question is whether the new sentence conveys the information that element covers. Avoid searching only for identical words; a terminology change can leave the information intact.

The same reasoning applies when text becomes a diagram or a labeled row in a table. If the reader can directly identify the protected assignment from the presentation, a format change has not removed the source decision. Check the labels and the relationship they display.

Why does the indirect draft reveal the assignment?

The indirect draft requires elimination: Harbor and Ridge are the exclusive alternatives, and Ridge is excluded. Harbor follows from the premises. The draft never uses the direct assignment sentence, but the reader can recover the protected fact.

The exclusive-alternative assumption does real work. Remove it, and excluding Ridge might leave other possibilities. Change “is not assigned Ridge” to “might not be assigned Ridge,” and the conclusion is no longer established in the same way. Small wording changes can alter what the text proves.

Write out the reasoning during review: available alternatives, excluded alternative, remaining assignment, and guide element covering that assignment. If a step depends on an unsupported assumption, identify it. Show every step. If the proposed conclusion depends on the alternatives being exhaustive, the exclusion being definite, and the team having a single assignment, make those premises visible to the reviewer so that a missing assumption is not mistaken for a fact supplied by the source.

A subject expert may spot implications that a general reader would miss. Explain the connection. When your expertise lets you recognize a relationship that is not obvious to a general reader, identify the contextual information the reader would need, the conclusion that follows, and the source decision that covers it, rather than asking the reviewer to accept your intuition. Expertise helps explain what the product communicates; it does not replace authorized classification guidance.

Does paraphrasing make classified meaning disappear?

No. Paraphrasing can leave protected information directly identifiable or make it recoverable through deduction. Evaluate the resulting meaning. Replacing a name, removing a quoted sentence, or changing a report into slides is not enough to establish that the protected fact is gone.

The Information Security Oversight Office’s August 2017 derivative-classification training includes paraphrasing and restating within derivative classification and shows the associated marking components. Its training examples should be used with current rules and your applicable customer guidance.

For a job interview, explain this process with invented content. You can say that you compare a proposed summary with its authorized sources and review indirect disclosures before distribution. A former employer’s actual report is unnecessary and may be inappropriate material for demonstrating the skill.

Avoid presenting a rewrite as sanitized until it has completed whatever review your organization requires. Ask who can approve the intended use and audience. Classification analysis and permission to distribute a particular product are related questions that should both be settled.

How does context change the generic travel sentence?

Alone, the generic sentence does not identify Harbor. Next to a map or legend that links the team’s identifier to Harbor, the assembled product may disclose the assignment. Evaluate the sentence in the product the recipient will actually see, while retaining the same assumed guide.

Keep the test controlled. First remove the map and ask what the sentence establishes by itself. Then restore the map and identify the added information that supplies the route. If the conclusion changes, document which context caused the change.

Do not treat every possible association as a proven disclosure. Ask what the recipient can infer from the actual material and relevant context, and where the inference relies on uncertainty. If you cannot tell whether the guide covers the relationship, seek clarification rather than forcing the example into a category.

When a combined product creates a separate relationship that may require classification by compilation, ask whether the applicable guide addresses that relationship. Revealed by is not a catch-all answer for every aggregation problem, and assembling material is not by itself a new classification authority.

How do you mark the resulting document?

Once the information is evaluated against authorized sources, apply the required portion, overall, and authority-block markings. For these fictional direct and indirect drafts, the protected assignment receives the assumed Secret treatment. Actual workplace markings must follow the real source, guide, medium, and applicable requirements.

32 CFR 2001.22(a)-(e) explains how derivative markings draw on source documents and guides, including classifier identification, the source reference, and declassification instructions. Complete the Classified By, Derived From, and Declassify On fields using the applicable instructions.

Review headings, summaries, tables, notes, and attachments as well as the paragraph that first raised the question. Leave a usable trail. If another employee will finish the product, make sure that person can find the relevant source portion, understand the assumptions used in the deduction, identify any pending clarification, and distinguish material already reviewed from content added after the review. Use the current marking reference for the actual format rather than copying a training display as a production template.

A final pass should compare the marked product with the version actually intended for delivery. Edits made after review can add context or change an implication. If a revision changes what the reader can learn, return that change through the appropriate review process instead of assuming the earlier answer still applies.

What if your inference outruns the written guidance?

Hold the unresolved distribution and explain the gap to your security office through an approved channel. Separate uncertainty about what the text means from uncertainty about which classification decision covers it. Each needs an answer; guessing does not resolve either.

For contractor work, 32 CFR 117.13(d)(4)(ii) places classification guidance and the final determination with the government contracting activity. The FSO’s role helps identify your starting contact for routing questions. Provide the relevant text, source references, and reasoning through the permitted system.

Use topics raised in security clearance briefings as prompts for local training questions. Ask how your organization records clarification, who approves the answer, and how the team learns about revised guidance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is contained in limited to copying exact words?

No. Clear paraphrases and restatements can still communicate the source information directly. The distinction is whether added interpretation or analysis is needed.

Is revealed by a higher classification level?

No. It describes reasoning used to identify information that the new material reveals. The applicable authorized source supplies the classification decision.

Does an ambiguous sentence always require classification?

Evaluate what it communicates in context and compare that with the guidance. If the classification question remains unresolved, ask the security office rather than treating ambiguity as either an automatic classification or a release approval.

What should I check before sending a summary?

Write the protected fact beside the proposed wording, identify the guide element, and explain whether the fact is stated directly or deduced. Send any unresolved step to your security office through its approved channel before distribution.