Mediocre at best - Analyst Command Investigations Employee Review

I was initially contacted by the company after applying for a “Report Preparation Analyst” position. Shortly after, I was told they’d love to interview me—but for a completely different role: a “Background/Social Media Investigator” position. That last-minute switch should have been a red flag, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt and scheduled the interview. I was informed the Head of Intelligence would be conducting the interview, which sounded promising. Before the interview, I reached out to the lead expressing my excitement and eagerness to speak. The message was viewed, but I never received a reply—which in hindsight, was another red flag I ignored. She is the head of the Intelligence Unit, she is most likely busy. Still, I showed up enthusiastic and ready to contribute. Unfortunately, my first day was a letdown. Training had nothing to do with analysis, and I didn’t even get to the “Social Media Investigator” training until more than a month in, and that’s what I thought I was hired to do. I never did make it to the Background Investigation training. First and foremost, the pay is not commensurate with the expectations of an “analyst” role. I use the term loosely, as much of the work involves speculative identification rather than concrete analysis. Often, identifying a subject is straightforward—but when it isn’t, the process can feel like educated guessing. Despite this uncertainty, the expectation is to submit findings, even when there’s little to no actionable information. This contributes to a workflow that feels more focused on volume than accuracy. The leadership team, particularly the “leads,” typically lack formal intelligence or analytical training outside of their tenure within the company or its related entities. The most technical part of the job often comes down to figuring out which of the vast number of report templates to use, rather than engaging in any deep or meaningful investigative work. There is a noticeable disconnect between the effort put in by analysts and the value the company extracts per case. If Command truly wants to elevate the quality of its services, it should consider hiring trained analysts and offering compensation that reflects the complexity and responsibility of the role. The current emphasis on speed over accuracy could present long-term risks, especially in a field where a false identification can have serious legal implications. Entrusting high-stakes investigations to recent graduates without adequate training or oversight is a liability waiting to happen. To be frank, I’m not entirely certain why any of the more tenured analysts are even still there. They all complain about the leads, the caseload and one another.