Traditionally, the TRIZ contradiction table has been used to compare a desired “improving” feature” against a “gets worse” feature, optimizing the choice of which of the TRIZ 40 principles should be first used in attempting a solution to resolve the contradiction. Despite numerous advances in TRIZ problem solving tools and methodologies, the use of this process in reverse to determine the linkage between observed problem solving behavior and the underlying contradictions remains undeveloped. This type of analysis could be useful in analyzing competitive business strategies or in the analysis of criminal activities. This paper explores the use of the principles in reverse logic and offers a helpful methodology that can facilitate investigative and analytical research across many fields. The researcher or research group first determines the potential observed or hypothesized principle at work in an imminent organizational development, technical innovation, or behavior shift. In the next step, the research determines the underlying contradiction or contradictions which may be resolved by the principle at work. Through investigating the use of principles in reverse, competitor or criminal actions and innovations can be anticipated, analyzed, and pre-empted. Alternatively, the behavior or developments of neutral subjects may be further understood. In addition to expanding the use of TRIZ, the methodology illustrates that the classic 40 Inventive Principles and the Contradiction Matrix still continue to present innovative applications.