You would have to explain to what data and what you mean by analyzing it.
Neural perception (data formation) - neural transmission (data transmission) - central neural activity (data analysis) - neural transmission (data transmission) - reaction (data transmission, physical action).
An example of basic centrally processed reflex.
I'm basing it on casual observation of animals themselves. Anyone can see that animals don't do much that could require independent thought instead of instinct or conditioning.
And Earth is flat. I mean, jee, it sure looks like it.
My personal observations suggest the exact opposite, but neither has any merit in discussion.
And that's my problem, I see nothing to confirm that in the study of Animal Cognition, not to mention there is some debate as to interpretation of results.
I'm not a textbook, and I'm not an expert in the field. I simply expect you not to argue about something that you just admitted you know exceptionally little about.
If you want to argue that animal consciousness is significantly different from human one in any number of aspects, the burden of proof is on you since you'll be going against discovered biological similarities in most cases.
I can provide some anecdotal evidence for a few things if you want though, but that's hardly too productive.
You missed the word "conclusive". I know a bunch of stuff on the matter, sure, but I'm not going to say I have undeniable proof to even define what "consciousness" really is, per se.
You can talk about gravity even if you don't know what causes it - but you can't pretend you know the cause right next sentence. Is this a sound enough example?