The one peer-reviewed empirical ACH study (Dhami, Belton & Mandel 2019) compares ACH to Bayesian updating, not abduction, and never mentions Peirce

Dhami, Belton, and Mandel's "The 'analysis of competing hypotheses' in intelligence analysis" (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2019) is a randomized study of 50 intelligence analysts using ACH. Its discussion section situates ACH against alternative and supplementary techniques — argumentation schemes, "consider-the-opposite" strategies, and, most extensively, Bayesian updating: "Bayesian reasoning has previously been recommended to the intelligence community... Analysts can update their belief in the prior probability of a hypothesis being true... based on incoming evidence and compute a posterior probability." A full-text read of the paper (all pages plus references) found no occurrence of "abduct" or "Peirce."

The point is directional, not merely an absence. When a Tier-1 academic source with strong incentive to place ACH within the formal-reasoning literature reaches for a theoretical neighbor, it reaches for Bayes — the same formalism a US-intelligence-funded computer-science group chose when it recast ACH as Bayesian networks, and the "decision analysis" lineage Heuer himself named. Two independent formalizations of ACH thus converge on probability and graphical models, not on abductive or rule-chaining inference.

This is one of the Tier-1 silences underwriting the finding that no primary or academic source documents the claimed ACH–abduction similarity: the study best positioned to draw that comparison declines to, and reaches for Bayes instead.