- Data is separated from analysis
- Statements are carefully qualified and sources attributed, to acknowledge where information is limited or possibly in error
- The analysis contains alternative scenarios that could explain the same data
- The analysis is stated in an uninvolved, unemotional way when it concerns the war in Iraq, but changes to a more emotional tone when discussing how the "lessons learned" here should apply to Russia. This is a small detail that a hoaxer would probably not think to include.
- There are interesting details about the nature of the intercepts, such as the intercept of a phone conversation between a journalist and his editor. An average hoaxer probably would not think things through to that level of detail, but this is actually quite a plausible source of information.
Because of the writing style, I would bet that this is authentically the work of a professional analyst and not an average hoaxer. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether writer really believes the material or if it is disinformation.