In a divergent system of information flows, critical judgment of information is crucial in order to assess the validity or the likelihood of data received through diverse channels. Applied in political science, critical judgment of information integrates certain notions of history, politics and game theory to increase assessment performances; help grasp the effects of politics on information; reduce judgment flaws caused by personal bias in political inferences by systematizing information assessments. The term information is used broadly to encompass all forms of meaningful representations such as images, words and sounds suggesting or representing meanings. For practical purpose, the term principle, as its particular usage makes conspicuous, conflates two types of principle: one, factual; the other, instructive. The guiding principles of critical judgment that are crucial to information assessments, are as follows: 1) two contradictory positive statements imply that one is necessarily factually incorrect; 2) government-funded or private-funded organizations are the most susceptible of information manipulation; 3) no information source is free from information manipulation; 4) the freer is an information environment, the less susceptible to information manipulation; 5) the more incentive there is, the greater the manipulation can be; 6) a positive statement should be assessed in terms of likelihood with some exceptions; 7) manipulated data are clustered in function to their interrelatedness for cohesion. In a divergent system of information flows, with one exception, all conflicting data are to be considered in terms of likelihood even when scholarly works on the subject are available. The reason of which are that historical interpretations are theoretical by nature and historical records stem from imperfect information flows. The potential problem that may be derived is thus an accretion of factual inaccuracies. To avoid such inaccuracies, it is important in the case in question to consider a data as potentially valid only when it is presented in the form of an avowal through official channels. Non divergent data are systematically potentially valid. In any other case, likelihood must be carefully assessed through game theoretical contextual approach. All potentially valid data must undergo a game theoretical assessment before being accepted as valid. It is theoretically possible that players behave irrationally and throw off one's validity assessment; however, its functional quality is not affected thereby. Communication can be closely tied to interest groups. Once this relation is uncovered the communication in question is to be considered as interest-ridden. However, the information related to such communication is not necessarily fabricated. Typical information manipulations are: 1) semantic manipulation, that is, the replacement of a term to a semantically contiguous term, in other words, the conflation of two contiguous terms, or the use of a term that denotes a negative connotation or a positive connotation, or any such manipulation that involves a semantic shift away from its purely descriptive function; 2) image manipulation, that is, the presentation of certain images that may suggest a negative or a positive idea, it is analogous to semantic manipulation; 3) selection bias, that is, a misrepresentation of reality, or the ruling out of dissident voices, aimed at filtering unwanted information to reach the public, or inducing the adoption of a certain standpoint by the public; 4) information fabrication, that is, the creation of false information. In a dead-end situation, information must be assessed in terms of its incentive force exclusively in order to not negatively affect political inference performances. This incentive force is idle and conjectural: it—often—is not factual and therefore must not affect political inference. This happens when the likelihood assessment reaches the theoretical 50%, or in the absence of any inconsistency found in official or independent communication and scholarly work. Here, this principle is in effect for the purpose of improving political inference performances. This principle carries a subtle distinction, but nonetheless a very important one. This distinction implies the directive of considering dead-ends as such. The transformation, however, is more of form than substance, the fundamental component preserves its meaning. It is only made more explicit. The incidental part is not of great importance. Its assessment is left to one's discretion. Not absolute, and hence contingent are all truth statements, unless they involve a certain circular justification, and the information validity assessment that was here described embodies this very principle. That the mind should accept any information, from meaningful representations to mere sensory information, as absolute truth, is a belief that is characterized by surface-thinking, rather than in-depth thinking.