Why Allied intelligence could not simply trust Canaris

Why did the Allies appear to ignore information from Admiral Canaris?

They could consider it, but could not automatically trust the enemy intelligence chief; the record also does not show exactly what he supplied or how it affected decisions.

The assumption that warnings from Admiral Canaris were simply ignored is challenged. Canaris was the enemy's highly capable intelligence chief, so Allied analysts could not responsibly accept every message without corroboration. The surviving record does not show exactly what he supplied or how particular reports shaped decisions. Denmark Strait illustrates retrospective distortion: on paper, Hood and the new Prince of Wales formed a credible force against a German battleship and cruiser. An outcome that later looks disastrous does not prove that contemporary planners lacked or ignored intelligence.