📐 EU Parliament Monitor — Analysis Methodologies

📊 The Political Intelligence Methodology Library for European Parliament Analysis
🎯 Six core analytical frameworks (Classification · Risk · Threat · SWOT · AI Quality · OSINT) + horizon & provenance methodologies (Synthesis · Strategic Extensions · Per-Document · Structural Metadata · Electoral Domain & Cycle · Analytical Supplementary · Forward Projection · IMF + World Bank Indicator Mappings · Source Triangulation · Confidence Calibration · Voter Segmentation · Style) + machine-readable style enforcement governing the analysis templates under analysis/templates/
📁 Current scope: 24 methodology .md files + 2 JSON config files (style + reference-quality-thresholds) governing 61 templates — ls analysis/methodologies/ and ls analysis/templates/ are the source of truth; hand-written counts in prose are deprecated.

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 3.4 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-05-15 (UTC) 🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-07-31 🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

---

📚 Architecture Documentation Map

---

🛡️ ISMS Policy Alignment

Policy	Description	Relevance to Analysis Methodologies
Information Security Policy	Organization-wide security governance and risk management	Defines risk assessment methodology adapted for political risk scoring
AI Policy	Responsible AI usage, transparency, and human oversight	Governs LLM-driven analysis: quality gates, bias mitigation, evidence requirements
Classification Policy	Data classification scheme and handling requirements	Classification guide aligns sensitivity levels with ISMS classification tiers
Secure Development Policy	Secure coding standards and SDLC security gates	Style guide and quality gates enforce structured, reviewable analytical output
Open Source Policy	Open source contribution and licensing governance	All methodology documents published under project license for transparency

---

🎯 Purpose

This directory contains the political-intelligence methodology library that governs how EU Parliament Monitor's agentic workflows produce, classify, assess, and publish European Parliament analysis. It splits into two layers: six core analytical frameworks (Classification, Risk, Threat, SWOT, Style, AI-Driven Guide) and a set of horizon-conditional / cross-cutting methodologies (OSINT Tradecraft, Confidence Calibration, Source Triangulation, Synthesis, Strategic Extensions, Per-Document, Structural Metadata, Electoral Domain + Cycle, Analytical Supplementary, IMF + World Bank Indicator Mappings, Forward-Projection, Voter Segmentation). Together they transform raw European Parliament MCP data into structured, evidence-based political intelligence. The operational entry point for every run is ai-driven-analysis-guide.md §"🚀 Quick-Start Cheat-Sheet".

Core Principle: Every analytical claim requires verifiable evidence sourced from European Parliament open data. Opinion-based analysis, boilerplate summaries, and the unmodified use of software-centric threat models (such as STRIDE, DREAD, or PASTA) are explicitly rejected for political analysis. Political threat analysis uses purpose-built frameworks (Political Threat Landscape, Attack Trees, Kill Chain, Diamond Model, ICO Profiling) designed specifically for democratic process analysis. STRIDE remains in use in THREAT_MODEL.md for software security of the platform itself.

Design Philosophy: The six core frameworks form a layered analytical pipeline — classification provides the foundation, risk and threat assessments build the analytical core, SWOT synthesizes strategic implications, style standards enforce writing quality, and the AI guide orchestrates the entire pipeline with quality gates. The supporting methodologies extend that pipeline horizontally: osint-tradecraft-standards.md is the cross-cutting professional-tradecraft layer (ICD 203 · Admiralty Code · Words of Estimative Probability · SAT catalog · OSINT ethics) every artifact applies; confidence-calibration.md is the single source of truth for confidence labels (3-marker operational + 5-level heritage scale, WEP bands, Admiralty grades); synthesis-methodology.md governs the Stage-B.7 synthesis layer; strategic-extensions-methodology.md, electoral-domain-methodology.md and electoral-cycle-methodology.md cover deep-analysis and electoral-specific runs; per-document-methodology.md and structural-metadata-methodology.md cover atomic per-EP-document analysis and run-level provenance; and imf-indicator-mapping.md (primary) + worldbank-indicator-mapping.md (non-economic) govern the economic-context evidence ladder.

---

🔄 Methodology Pipeline — How AI Agents Apply Frameworks

The following diagram illustrates the sequential pipeline that an AI agent follows when processing an incoming European Parliament data file:

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
flowchart TD
    Start([📥 EP MCP Data Received]) --> Read["📚 Agent Reads the<br/>Methodology Library<br/>(24 .md files)"]
    Read --> Classify["🏷️ Step 1: Classify Event<br/>7-Dimension Classification"]
    Classify --> Risk["⚠️ Step 2: Assess Risk<br/>Likelihood × Impact Matrix"]
    Risk --> Threat["🎯 Step 3: Analyze Threats<br/>Political Threat Landscape<br/>+ 5 Supporting Frameworks"]
    Threat --> SWOT["💼 Step 4: Build SWOT<br/>Evidence-Based Quadrants"]
    SWOT --> Write["📝 Step 5: Write Analysis<br/>Depth Level 1/2/3"]
    Write --> QualityGate{✅ Quality Gate<br/>Score ≥ 7.0/10?}
    QualityGate -->|Yes ✅| Publish([📤 Publish Analysis])
    QualityGate -->|No ❌| Revise[🔄 Revise & Re-Assess]
    Revise --> Classify

    style Start fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Read fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style Classify fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style Risk fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style Threat fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style SWOT fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Write fill:#4A148C,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style QualityGate fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    style Publish fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Revise fill:#D84315,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF

---

📐 Methodology Architecture

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
graph TB
    subgraph "🏛️ Core Analysis Engine"
        GUIDE["🤖 AI-Driven Analysis Guide<br/><i>Master Protocol</i>"]
        STYLE["✍️ Political Style Guide<br/><i>Writing Standards</i>"]
    end

    subgraph "🔬 Analytical Frameworks"
        CLASS["🏷️ Classification Guide<br/><i>7-Dimension Taxonomy</i>"]
        RISK["⚠️ Risk Methodology<br/><i>Cascading Risk Model</i>"]
        SWOT["💼 SWOT Framework<br/><i>TOWS + Cross-SWOT</i>"]
        THREAT["🎭 Threat Framework<br/><i>6-Dimension + 5 Frameworks</i>"]
    end

    subgraph "📋 ISMS Reference Layer"
        ISMS1["📖 ISMS Classification"]
        ISMS2["📖 ISMS Risk Assessment"]
        ISMS3["📖 ISMS Style Guide"]
        ISMS4["📖 ISMS Threat Modeling"]
    end

    GUIDE -->|"governs"| CLASS
    GUIDE -->|"governs"| RISK
    GUIDE -->|"governs"| SWOT
    GUIDE -->|"governs"| THREAT
    STYLE -->|"standards"| CLASS
    STYLE -->|"standards"| RISK
    STYLE -->|"standards"| SWOT
    STYLE -->|"standards"| THREAT
    ISMS1 -.->|"adapted from"| CLASS
    ISMS2 -.->|"adapted from"| RISK
    ISMS3 -.->|"adapted from"| STYLE
    ISMS4 -.->|"adapted from"| THREAT

    style GUIDE fill:#0d6efd,color:#fff,stroke:#0a58ca,stroke-width:2px
    style STYLE fill:#6610f2,color:#fff,stroke:#520dc2,stroke-width:2px
    style CLASS fill:#198754,color:#fff,stroke:#146c43,stroke-width:2px
    style RISK fill:#dc3545,color:#fff,stroke:#b02a37,stroke-width:2px
    style SWOT fill:#fd7e14,color:#fff,stroke:#ca6510,stroke-width:2px
    style THREAT fill:#d63384,color:#fff,stroke:#ab296a,stroke-width:2px
    style ISMS1 fill:#e9ecef,color:#212529,stroke:#adb5bd
    style ISMS2 fill:#e9ecef,color:#212529,stroke:#adb5bd
    style ISMS3 fill:#e9ecef,color:#212529,stroke:#adb5bd
    style ISMS4 fill:#e9ecef,color:#212529,stroke:#adb5bd

---

📊 Methodology Relationship Map

This diagram shows how the core methodology/framework documents relate to each other and feed into the final analysis output. The visualisation focuses on the six core analytical frameworks because they are the load-bearing nodes; the horizon-conditional and cross-cutting methodologies (OSINT tradecraft, confidence calibration, source triangulation, synthesis, strategic extensions, per-document, structural metadata, electoral domain + cycle, analytical supplementary, IMF + WB indicator mappings, forward-projection, voter segmentation) are layers that every framework applies and are catalogued in the Methodology Summary Table below:

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
graph LR
    CG[🏷️ Classification Guide<br/>7 Dimensions] --> RG[⚠️ Risk Methodology<br/>5×5 Likelihood × Impact]
    CG --> TF[🎯 Threat Framework<br/>6 Political Threat Dimensions]
    RG --> SW[💼 SWOT Framework<br/>Evidence-Based Quadrants]
    TF --> SW
    SW --> SG[📝 Style Guide<br/>3 Depth Levels]
    SG --> AI[🤖 AI Analysis Guide<br/>Quality Gates]
    AI -->|Orchestrates all| CG
    CG -.->|Sensitivity feeds| TF
    RG -.->|Scores inform| TF
    TF -.->|Threats map to| SW

    style CG fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style RG fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style TF fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style SW fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style SG fill:#4A148C,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style AI fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF

---

📋 Methodology Summary Table

Priority	Document	Key Content	Dimensions / Frameworks	When to Apply
1	Political Classification Guide	7-dimension event classification, sensitivity levels, policy domain taxonomy, urgency matrix	Sensitivity (4 levels), Democratic Integrity, Policy Urgency, Economic Impact, Governance Impact, Political Capital, Legislative Impact	First — every incoming EP event/document must be classified before any analysis begins
2	Political Risk Methodology	Likelihood × Impact scoring, 6 EP risk categories, 5×5 matrix, Grand Coalition stability risk	Coalition Stability, Policy Implementation, Institutional Integrity, Economic Governance, Social Cohesion, Geopolitical Standing	Second — after classification, assess political risk using calibrated scoring
3	Political Threat Framework	5-framework integrated threat analysis: Political Threat Landscape (6D) + Attack Trees + Kill Chain + Diamond Model + ICO Profiling	Coalition Shifts, Transparency Deficit, Policy Reversal, Institutional Pressure, Legislative Obstruction, Democratic Erosion	Third — apply threat analysis using purpose-built political frameworks (STRIDE explicitly rejected)
4	Political SWOT Framework	Evidence-based SWOT, confidence levels, 180-day decay, group-to-landscape aggregation	Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats — each with confidence (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)	Fourth — synthesize classification + risk + threat into strategic SWOT assessment
5	Political Style Guide	Writing standards, 3 depth levels, evidence density requirements, anti-patterns	Level 1 Surface (200–500 words), Level 2 Strategic (800–2,000 words), Level 3 Intelligence (2,000–5,000 words)	Fifth — apply writing standards when drafting the analysis document
6	AI-Driven Analysis Guide	10-step analysis protocol, mandatory 2-pass improvement, reference-quality depth floors	Evidence (25%), Depth (25%), Structural (20%), Actionable (15%), Neutrality (15%)	Always — orchestrates the entire pipeline; AI agents read this first
7	OSINT / INTOP Tradecraft Standards	ICD 203 analytic standards, Admiralty source × info grading, Kent / WEP estimative bands, canonical SAT catalog, OSINT sourcing ethics	9 ICD standards · 6×6 Admiralty grid · 7 WEP bands · 10 SATs · 5 ethical limits	Cross-cutting — applied by every framework to every artifact; attested in methodology-reflection.md
8	Artifact Catalog	Master map of every analysis markdown file produced under analysis/daily/*/ — grouped by folder with methodology + template + depth floor + Mermaid type per artifact	7 folder groups (intelligence 18 · classification 4 · risk-scoring 4 · threat-assessment 5 · documents 1 · existing legacy 2+mirrors · extended 12 optional)	Step 2 — after reading the AI guide, agents consult this catalog to know what to produce
9	Per-Artifact Methodologies	One section per artifact type with purpose, EP MCP inputs, required sections, mandatory Mermaid, depth floor, quality signals	~41 artifacts across 7 folder groups (29 mandatory + 12 optional extended)	Step 2 — construction lookup; read the relevant section when writing each artifact
10	Synthesis Methodology	Stage B.7 synthesis layer — significance-scoring → synthesis-summary → stakeholder-perspectives → coalition-dynamics → executive-brief	F3EAD Analyze→Disseminate; EP PIRs; WEP bands; ICD 203 Standards 5/6/8	Stage B.7 — applied after classification + risk + threat + SWOT to produce decision-ready intelligence
11	Strategic Extensions Methodology	Construction rules for strategic-depth artifacts: scenario-forecast, wildcards-blackswans, historical-baseline, stakeholder-map, pestle-analysis, economic-context, threat-model	7 strategic artifacts; WEP bands; Admiralty ≥B2; cross-artifact anchoring	Stage B.6 — deep analytical extensions beyond the core synthesis layer
12	Per-Document Methodology	Construction rules for per-file-political-intelligence — atomic evidence extraction per EP document (COM, A-, B-, RC, reports, opinions, motions)	8 evidence layers; Admiralty per-claim; provenance URL required	Stage A.3 — produced for every downloaded EP document before synthesis
13	Structural Metadata Methodology	Construction rules for provenance layer — analysis-index.md, document-analysis-index.md, manifest.json, and the extended/cross-reference-map.md + extended/data-download-manifest.md artifacts	Manifest schema; MCP call inventory; citation graph	Stage A.1 / E.1 — produced at run start (index scaffolding) and run end (full manifest)
14	Electoral Domain Methodology	EP election analysis — 2024 retrospective + 2029 forecast; national-delegation seat projections; Spitzenkandidaten; cross-MS party family analysis	27 MS; 720 seats; D'Hondt variants; Europhile/Euroskeptic segmentation	Electoral runs — produced for election-focused workflows and for extended/voter-segmentation.md
15	Forward-Projection Methodology	Multi-horizon forecasting protocol — 7d / 30d / 90d / 12m / term-end / EP-election. WEP decay tables, structural-break tripwires, reference-class forecasting, pipeline transit-time priors.	6-horizon lattice; WEP decay bands; ≥6 alt scenarios for long-horizon; pipeline transit Monte-Carlo P10/P50/P90	Long-horizon prospective runs — every prospective horizon ≥ 7 days produces a forward-projection.md artifact governed by this methodology
16	Electoral-Cycle Methodology	Dual-track lens for the election-cycle horizon — Track A (term retrospective: vote-share delta, mandate-fulfilment scorecard, defection-flow) + Track B (term forecast: seat projections at 6/12/24/36-month horizons, coalition viability, Spitzenkandidaten arithmetic, treaty-revision feasibility)	EP9/EP10/EP11 anchors; 27 MS; 720 seats; mandate-fulfilment matrix; coalition arithmetic	Election-cycle and term-outlook workflows — promoted from extended layer to primary lens of the article
17	Analytical Supplementary Methodology	Rules for optional deep-dive analytical templates — PESTLE deep-dive, Wildcards & Black Swans, Quantitative SWOT, Media Framing & Influence-Operations deep-dive (v2.0). Composition rules, DIW weight vector, TTP mapping, forward-indicator feed.	4 supplementary templates; DISARM T-codes; ABCDE CIB; Entman framing; RRPA composite	Supplementary — triggered by specific analytical conditions (≥2 PESTLE dimensions, high salience, long-horizon forecasting, decision memo)
18	Political Style Guide (machine-readable)	Machine-readable style enforcement rules — WEP bands, Admiralty grades, named-actor discipline, no-neutral-media doctrine, EU-specific constants (720 seats, 361 majority, 27 MS).	JSON schema; 7 WEP bands; 6×6 Admiralty; prohibited terms; citation formats	Advisory — consumed by AI agents during analysis generation for style compliance guidance (not currently enforced by validation scripts)

---

📖 Methodology Catalog

🤖 AI-Driven Analysis Guide — ai-driven-analysis-guide.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Master protocol governing all AI-driven political intelligence analysis
Scope	All agentic workflows, all analysis types, all output artifacts
Key Rules	Folder isolation · AI-only content · Multi-framework depth · Quality gates · Cross-session intelligence
Version	4.1

Core Principles:

• Folder Isolation: Every workflow writes ONLY to its own analysis/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/ subfolder
• AI-Only Content: Scripts must NEVER generate analysis prose, SWOT entries, risk scores, or template content
• Quality Gates: Automated checks validate every analysis artifact before commit (minimum 7.0/10)

🏷️ Political Classification Guide — political-classification-guide.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Multi-dimensional taxonomy for political document and event classification
Dimensions	7: Public Interest · Democratic Integrity · Policy Urgency · Economic Impact · Governance · Political Capital · Legislative Impact
Confidence Levels	HIGH (≥80%) · MEDIUM (60–79%) · LOW (<60%)
Version	2.1

⚠️ Political Risk Assessment Methodology — political-risk-methodology.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Systematic risk identification, scoring, and cascading impact analysis
Risk Categories	6: Coalition Stability · Policy Implementation · Institutional Integrity · Economic Governance · Social Cohesion · Geopolitical Standing
Scoring Model	Likelihood (1–5) × Impact (1–5) = Risk Score (1–25)
Advanced Features	Cascading risk chains · Grand Coalition stability risk · Risk velocity tracking · Data availability risk
Version	2.1

💼 Political SWOT Analysis Framework — political-swot-framework.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Multi-stakeholder strategic analysis for political events and policy decisions
Stakeholder Lenses	Grand Coalition · Opposition Bloc · Citizens/Civil Society · Economic Actors · International Observers
Advanced Features	TOWS Matrix · Cross-SWOT Interference · 180-day Decay · Scenario Generation · Temporal Dynamics
Version	2.0

🎭 Political Threat Analysis Framework — political-threat-framework.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Multi-framework threat modeling for democratic process threats
Frameworks	5 Integrated: Political Threat Landscape (6D) + Attack Trees + Political Kill Chain + Diamond Model + ICO Profiling
Threat Taxonomy	6 Dimensions: Coalition Shifts · Transparency Deficit · Policy Reversal · Institutional Pressure · Legislative Obstruction · Democratic Erosion
Version	4.0 (2026-04-23) — STRIDE removed, riksdagsmonitor multi-framework approach integrated

⚠️ STRIDE is NOT used. This methodology uses 5 purpose-built political intelligence frameworks. STRIDE (Spoofing/Tampering/Repudiation/Information Disclosure/Denial of Service/Elevation of Privilege) was designed for software security threat modeling and does not meaningfully transfer to political analysis. See political-threat-framework.md §Why NOT STRIDE for full rationale.

✍️ Political Intelligence Style Guide — political-style-guide.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Establishes writing standards for all political intelligence output
Scope	Article tone, evidence citation standards, Mermaid diagram requirements, confidence labelling
Key Standards	Evidence tables (not prose) · EP procedure citations · Colour-coded diagrams · Multi-language terminology · Recess-period guidance
Version	2.1

🕵️ OSINT / INTOP Tradecraft Standards — osint-tradecraft-standards.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Cross-cutting professional analytic discipline applied by every framework to every artifact
Pillars	5: ICD 203 (9 analytic standards) · Admiralty Code (source × info grading) · Words of Estimative Probability (7 bands) · SAT catalog (10 techniques) · OSINT sourcing ethics
Key Standards	Grade every source (A1–F6 → 🟢/🟡/🔴) · Calibrated estimative vocabulary · Banned ambiguous terms · ≥10 SATs attested per run · No personal-life data on MEPs
Version	1.0

✅ Cross-cutting layer. Unlike the six domain frameworks above (which each own a specific analytic task), this framework defines the professional standards every framework applies — source grading, estimative language, structured analytic techniques, and OSINT ethics. It is attested in each run's methodology-reflection.md.

🗺️ Artifact Catalog — artifact-catalog.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Master map between the templates in analysis/templates/ (currently 61 — ls is truth) and the methodologies above; names the canonical run-relative path for every artifact
Used by	02-analysis-protocol.md (Stage B) and 03-analysis-completeness-gate.md (Stage C)
Enforcement	Stage-C completeness gate — npm run validate-analysis -- <runDir> (scripts/validate-analysis-completeness.js) reads this catalog plus reference-quality-thresholds.json and fails the agentic run with exit code 1 if any artifact is missing, below the line floor, lacks a mandatory Mermaid block, or shows placeholder leakage. The duplicate src/utils/validate-analysis-completeness.ts runtime layer was purged in the April-2026 aggregator-pipeline migration; the surviving CLI is the Stage-C source of truth.

🧪 Per-Artifact Methodologies — per-artifact-methodologies.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Normative per-artifact rules — one ### section per artifact, 34 in total, describing required sections, minimum depth, source-grading demand, and estimative-language expectations
Paired with	artifact-catalog.md (what → where) + reference-quality-thresholds.json (how much)
Step 10.5	ai-driven-analysis-guide.md § Step 10.5 requires each run's methodology-reflection.md to reflect on the per-artifact methodologies actually applied

🔢 Quality Thresholds — reference-quality-thresholds.json

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Machine-readable per-artifact line-floor and depth-floor thresholds
Consumed by	Stage-C completeness gate — npm run validate-analysis -- <runDir> (scripts/validate-analysis-completeness.js) reads this JSON in machine mode to confirm every artifact meets its line/depth floor before the agentic-workflow reviewer creates the PR. Hermetic tests pass --thresholds to inject fixture floors. The duplicate src/utils/validate-analysis-completeness.ts runtime layer was purged in the April-2026 aggregator-pipeline migration.
Update cadence	Bumped whenever per-artifact-methodologies.md tightens or loosens a floor; the two files must stay in lock-step

💱 IMF Indicator Mapping — imf-indicator-mapping.md (primary economic source)

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Canonical mapping of IMF WEO / FM / IFS / BOP / ER / PCPS / GFSR / EREO / FSI / GFS / DOT indicator codes to EP analysis use cases
Paired MCP	IMF REST SDMX 3.0 client in src/mcp/imf-mcp-client.ts (virtual tools imf-list-databases, imf-search-databases, imf-get-parameter-defs, imf-get-parameter-codes, imf-fetch-data)

🌍 World Bank Indicator Mapping — worldbank-indicator-mapping.md (non-economic)

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Canonical mapping of World Bank WDI indicator codes — non-economic domains only, education, social, environment, demographics, defence, agriculture, innovation, governance. The legacy WB economic codes are retained for backward compatibility but MUST NOT be used in new articles; economic context → IMF
Paired MCP	World Bank MCP (world-bank-* tools)

✅ Together, artifact-catalog.md (what), per-artifact-methodologies.md (how), and reference-quality-thresholds.json (how much) form the Stage B / Stage C contract enforced by the Stage-C validator (npm run validate-analysis) plus an editorial completeness review. The two indicator-mapping files provide the Stage A economic-context inputs that editorial policy requires — IMF for economic/fiscal/monetary/trade claims, WB for non-economic domains. Analysis-completeness enforcement lives in the CLI plus Stage-C editorial review.

🔭 Forward-Projection Methodology — forward-projection-methodology.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Multi-horizon forecasting protocol applied by every prospective horizon ≥ 7 days. Replaces ad-hoc "what's coming up" prose with a horizon-conditional, evidence-anchored protocol: WEP decay tables, structural-break tripwires, reference-class forecasting, pipeline transit-time priors
Horizons	6-tier lattice: T+7d (week-ahead) · T+30d (month-ahead) · T+90d (quarter-ahead) · T+12m (year-ahead) · term-end (term-outlook) · EP-election (election-cycle)
Output artifacts	forward-projection.md (master), legislative-pipeline-forecast.md (Monte-Carlo P10/P50/P90 transit times), parliamentary-calendar-projection.md (3- or 12-month calendar walk-forward), presidency-trio-context.md (Council-Trio overlay), commission-wp-alignment.md (CWP line-item map)
Tradecraft anchors	F3EAD ANALYZE; Admiralty A1/A2/B2 floors; WEP requirement per probability claim; ICD 203 standards 3/4/5/7; SATs: Reference-Class Forecasting, Outside-In, Indicators & Warnings, Pre-Mortem, Morphological Analysis, Devil's Advocate
Used by	news-week-ahead.md, news-month-ahead.md, news-quarter-ahead.md, news-year-ahead.md, news-term-outlook.md, news-election-cycle.md

🗳️ Electoral-Cycle Methodology — electoral-cycle-methodology.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Dual-track lens for the election-cycle horizon — extends electoral-domain-methodology.md with a protocol that promotes the electoral lens to the primary lens of the article
Tracks	Track A — Term Retrospective (vote-share delta vs prior baseline, mandate-fulfilment scorecard, defection-flow map) · Track B — Term Forecast (seat projections per group at 6/12/24/36-month horizons, coalition viability matrix, Spitzenkandidaten arithmetic, treaty-revision feasibility)
EP-Term anchors	Canonical constants for EP9 (2 Jul 2019 → 1 Jul 2024), EP10 (16 Jul 2024 → ~end of Jun 2029), EP11 (~Jul 2029 → ~Jun 2034)
Output artifacts	term-arc.md, seat-projection.md, mandate-fulfilment-scorecard.md (also referenced by forward-projection-methodology.md for the electoral-cycle track)
Tradecraft anchors	F3EAD ANALYZE; Admiralty A1/A2/B2/C2 floors per data class; WEP per seat-projection band at 6/12/24/36 mo; ICD 203 standards 3/4/7; SATs: Reference-Class Forecasting, Devil's Advocate, Outside-In, Indicators & Warnings, Pre-Mortem, Coalition Mathematics
Used by	news-election-cycle.md, news-term-outlook.md (single-PR layout, no split-PR)

---

🏷️ 1. Political Classification Guide

Purpose & Scope

The classification guide establishes the authoritative methodology for categorizing every European Parliament event and document entering the analysis pipeline. It serves as the mandatory first step before any other analytical framework is applied.

Key Concepts

Concept	Description	Scale
Sensitivity Levels	Determines publication handling requirements	🟢 PUBLIC → 🟡 SENSITIVE → 🔴 RESTRICTED
Policy Domain Taxonomy	Categorizes events by EU policy area	Environment, Economy, Foreign Affairs, Justice, etc.
Urgency Matrix	Assesses time-sensitivity for editorial response	Immediate → Short-term → Medium-term → Long-term
7 Classification Dimensions	Multi-axis scoring across political impact areas	4-level ordinal scale per dimension
Score Thresholds	Aggregate classification severity tiers	≥70 CRITICAL · ≥50 HIGH · ≥30 MEDIUM · <30 LOW

Classification Dimension Diagram

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
graph TD
    Event([📥 Incoming EP Event]) --> S1[Public Interest<br/>Sensitivity]
    Event --> S2[Democratic Integrity<br/>Impact]
    Event --> S3[Policy Urgency]
    Event --> S4[Economic Impact]
    Event --> S5[Governance Impact]
    Event --> S6[Political Capital<br/>Impact]
    Event --> S7[Legislative Impact]

    S1 --> Score[📊 Aggregate<br/>Classification Score]
    S2 --> Score
    S3 --> Score
    S4 --> Score
    S5 --> Score
    S6 --> Score
    S7 --> Score

    Score --> T1{Score ≥ 70?}
    T1 -->|Yes| CRIT[🔴 CRITICAL]
    T1 -->|No| T2{Score ≥ 50?}
    T2 -->|Yes| HIGH[🟠 HIGH]
    T2 -->|No| T3{Score ≥ 30?}
    T3 -->|Yes| MED[🟡 MEDIUM]
    T3 -->|No| LOW[🟢 LOW]

    style Event fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Score fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style CRIT fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style HIGH fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style MED fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style LOW fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style S1 fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style S2 fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style S3 fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style S4 fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style S5 fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style S6 fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style S7 fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF

Connection to Other Methodologies

• Feeds into Risk Methodology: Classification severity determines initial risk likelihood calibration
• Feeds into Threat Framework: Sensitivity level determines which threat dimensions to prioritize
• Feeds into SWOT: High-classification events trigger SWOT re-assessment

---

⚠️ 2. Political Risk Methodology

Purpose & Scope

Provides a systematic Likelihood × Impact scoring framework for European Parliament political risks, adapted from the Hack23 ISMS Risk Assessment Methodology. Produces quantified risk scores across six EP-specific risk categories.

Key Concepts

Concept	Description	Scale
Likelihood Scale	Probability of risk materializing	Rare (1) → Unlikely (2) → Possible (3) → Likely (4) → Almost Certain (5)
Impact Scale	Severity of consequences if realized	Negligible (1) → Minor (2) → Moderate (3) → Major (4) → Severe (5)
Risk Score	Quantified assessment: Likelihood × Impact	1–25 (Low: 1–4, Medium: 5–9, High: 10–14, Critical: 15–25)
Six Risk Categories	EP-specific political risk domains	Coalition, Policy, Institutional, Economic, Social, Geopolitical
Grand Coalition Risk	Dedicated assessment of EP governing coalition stability	Composite metric from multiple indicators

Risk Scoring Matrix

%%{init: {
  "theme": "dark",
  "themeVariables": {
    "quadrant1Fill": "#D32F2F",
    "quadrant2Fill": "#FF9800",
    "quadrant3Fill": "#2E7D32",
    "quadrant4Fill": "#FFC107",
    "quadrantTitleFill": "#ffffff",
    "quadrantPointFill": "#ffffff",
    "quadrantPointTextFill": "#ffffff",
    "quadrantXAxisTextFill": "#ffffff",
    "quadrantYAxisTextFill": "#ffffff"
  },
  "quadrantChart": {
    "chartWidth": 700,
    "chartHeight": 700,
    "pointLabelFontSize": 14,
    "titleFontSize": 22,
    "quadrantLabelFontSize": 18,
    "xAxisLabelFontSize": 16,
    "yAxisLabelFontSize": 16
  }
}}%%
quadrantChart
    title ⚖️ Likelihood × Impact Risk Matrix
    x-axis "Low Impact" --> "High Impact"
    y-axis "Low Likelihood" --> "High Likelihood"
    quadrant-1 "🔴 Critical Risk (15–25)"
    quadrant-2 "🟠 High Risk (10–14)"
    quadrant-3 "🟢 Low Risk (1–4)"
    quadrant-4 "🟡 Medium Risk (5–9)"

Connection to Other Methodologies

• Receives from Classification: Classification severity calibrates initial likelihood estimates
• Feeds into Threat Framework: High-risk scores trigger deeper multi-framework threat analysis
• Feeds into SWOT: Risk scores populate the Threats and Weaknesses quadrants

---

🎯 3. Political Threat Framework

Purpose & Scope

Provides comprehensive, multi-framework political threat analysis using purpose-built political intelligence frameworks. This framework explicitly rejects software-centric threat models (STRIDE, DREAD, PASTA) in favor of six frameworks designed for democratic process analysis.

Key Concepts

Concept	Description	Frameworks
Political Threat Landscape	Core 6-dimension political threat model	Coalition Shifts, Transparency Deficit, Policy Reversal, Institutional Pressure, Legislative Obstruction, Democratic Erosion
Diamond Model	Adversary analysis identifying actors, capabilities, and motivations	Adversary → Infrastructure → Capability → Victim
Attack Trees	Goal-oriented threat decomposition for political objectives	Root goal → Sub-goals → Leaf actions
PESTLE	Macro-environmental threat scanning	Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental
Scenario Planning	Forward-looking threat assessment with probability-weighted scenarios	Best Case → Base Case → Worst Case
Political Kill Chain	Sequential threat progression in political processes	Reconnaissance → Mobilization → Positioning → Execution → Exploitation

Political Threat Dimension Diagram

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
graph TB
    PTL([🎯 Political Threat<br/>Landscape Analysis]) --> CS[🔄 Coalition Shifts<br/>Voting bloc realignment]
    PTL --> TD[🔍 Transparency Deficit<br/>Information asymmetry]
    PTL --> PR[↩️ Policy Reversal<br/>Legislative rollback]
    PTL --> IP[🏛️ Institutional Pressure<br/>Power concentration]
    PTL --> LO[⏳ Legislative Obstruction<br/>Procedural sabotage]
    PTL --> DE[📉 Democratic Erosion<br/>Norm degradation]

    CS --> SEV{Severity 1–5}
    TD --> SEV
    PR --> SEV
    IP --> SEV
    LO --> SEV
    DE --> SEV

    SEV --> DM[💎 Diamond Model]
    SEV --> AT[🌳 Attack Trees]
    SEV --> PE[🌍 PESTLE]
    SEV --> SP[🎲 Scenario Planning]
    SEV --> KC[🔗 Kill Chain]

    style PTL fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style CS fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style TD fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style PR fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style IP fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style LO fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style DE fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style SEV fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style DM fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style AT fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style PE fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style SP fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style KC fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF

Connection to Other Methodologies

• Receives from Classification: Sensitivity levels determine which threat dimensions require analysis
• Receives from Risk: High-risk scores trigger multi-framework deep analysis
• Feeds into SWOT: Identified threats populate the Threats quadrant with evidence chains

---

💼 4. Political SWOT Framework

Purpose & Scope

Establishes an evidence-based SWOT methodology where every entry in every quadrant must cite verifiable European Parliament data. This framework rejects opinion-based SWOT analysis and enforces confidence levels with a 180-day expiration rule.

Key Concepts

Concept	Description	Details
Evidence Requirement	Every SWOT entry must cite EP data sources	MCP tool calls, document references, voting records
Confidence Levels	Reliability grading for each entry	HIGH (multiple current sources) · MEDIUM (single primary) · LOW (credible but unverified)
180-Day Decay	Entries expire if not re-verified	Prevents stale assessments from persisting
Group-to-Landscape Aggregation	Individual political group SWOTs aggregate into landscape-level SWOT	Weighted by seat share and coalition significance
Minimum Density	Each quadrant must contain at least 2 entries	Prevents superficial analysis

SWOT Quadrant Flow

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
graph LR
    subgraph Internal
        S[✅ Strengths<br/>Legislative achievements<br/>Institutional cohesion]
        W[⚠️ Weaknesses<br/>Group fragmentation<br/>Legislative stalls]
    end

    subgraph External
        O[🚀 Opportunities<br/>Landmark legislation<br/>Cross-party consensus]
        T[🔴 Threats<br/>Far-right growth<br/>Legitimacy crisis]
    end

    S --> Synth[📊 Strategic Synthesis<br/>with Confidence Levels]
    W --> Synth
    O --> Synth
    T --> Synth

    style S fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style W fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style O fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style T fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style Synth fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF

Connection to Other Methodologies

• Receives from Classification, Risk, and Threat: All three upstream frameworks feed evidence into SWOT quadrants
• Feeds into Style Guide: SWOT depth determines the appropriate writing depth level
• Feeds into AI Guide: SWOT completeness is a quality gate criterion (≥2 entries per quadrant)

---

📝 5. Political Style Guide

Purpose & Scope

Establishes mandatory writing standards for all political intelligence analysis produced by EU Parliament Monitor's agentic workflows. Defines three depth levels calibrated to the classification severity and audience needs.

Key Concepts

Concept	Description	Specification
Level 1 — Surface	News summary for breaking events	200–500 words, min. 2 citations, daily scores
Level 2 — Strategic	Analysis article for weekly/committee briefs	800–2,000 words, min. 5 citations, policy recommendations
Level 3 — Intelligence	Deep analysis for monthly reports and MEP scorecards	2,000–5,000 words, min. 10 citations, scenario projections
Evidence Density	Minimum citations per artifact type	Varies by depth level: EP document refs + MCP data points
Anti-Patterns	Prohibited writing behaviors	No tables-only, no uncited claims, no opinions without evidence
Multi-Language	Standards for 14-language output	Consistent analytical structure across all supported languages

Writing Depth Selection

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
flowchart TD
    Input([📥 Classified Event]) --> Sev{Classification<br/>Severity?}
    Sev -->|CRITICAL or HIGH| L3[📚 Level 3 — Intelligence<br/>2,000–5,000 words<br/>≥10 citations]
    Sev -->|MEDIUM| L2[📰 Level 2 — Strategic<br/>800–2,000 words<br/>≥5 citations]
    Sev -->|LOW| L1[📋 Level 1 — Surface<br/>200–500 words<br/>≥2 citations]

    L3 --> Review[✍️ Apply Style Standards]
    L2 --> Review
    L1 --> Review

    style Input fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Sev fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style L3 fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style L2 fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style L1 fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Review fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF

Connection to Other Methodologies

• Receives from Classification: Severity determines depth level (Level 1, 2, or 3)
• Receives from SWOT: Strategic synthesis informs the narrative structure
• Feeds into AI Guide: Style compliance is a quality gate criterion

---

🤖 6. AI-Driven Analysis Guide

Purpose & Scope

Defines the comprehensive per-file AI analysis protocol. This is the orchestrator document that AI agents must read before processing any European Parliament data file. It specifies the analysis pipeline, document-type focus templates, quality gates, and conflict resolution for parallel workflows.

Key Concepts

Concept	Description	Specification
Per-File Protocol	Each EP MCP data file receives its own analysis	Dedicated markdown output per source file
Document-Type Templates	Tailored analysis focus per EP document type	Adopted texts, procedures, votes, speeches, questions, events, etc.
Quality Score Formula	Weighted multi-criteria self-assessment	Evidence (25%) + Depth (25%) + Structural (20%) + Actionable (15%) + Neutrality (15%)
Minimum Score	Hard quality gate for publication	7.0/10 weighted score — below threshold requires revision
Conflict Resolution	Rules for parallel workflow outputs	Deduplication, merge strategy, timestamp-based precedence
Methodology Reading Order	Agents must internalize all 7 methodology/framework docs	This guide → Classification → Risk → Threat → SWOT → Style → OSINT/INTOP Tradecraft

AI Quality Gate Process

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
flowchart TD
    Data([📥 EP MCP Data File]) --> Read[📚 Read All 6 Methodologies]
    Read --> Analyze[🔬 Execute Analysis Pipeline<br/>Classify → Risk → Threat → SWOT → Write]
    Analyze --> Self[🔍 Self-Assessment Scoring]

    Self --> E[Evidence<br/>Weight: 25%]
    Self --> D[Depth<br/>Weight: 25%]
    Self --> St[Structural<br/>Weight: 20%]
    Self --> A[Actionable<br/>Weight: 15%]
    Self --> N[Neutrality<br/>Weight: 15%]

    E --> Calc[📊 Calculate<br/>Weighted Score]
    D --> Calc
    St --> Calc
    A --> Calc
    N --> Calc

    Calc --> Gate{Score ≥ 7.0?}
    Gate -->|✅ Pass| Publish([📤 Publish])
    Gate -->|❌ Fail| Revise[🔄 Revise Analysis]
    Revise --> Analyze

    style Data fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Read fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style Analyze fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style Self fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style E fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style D fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style St fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style A fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style N fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Calc fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style Gate fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style Publish fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Revise fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF

Connection to Other Methodologies

• Orchestrates all frameworks: AI Guide is the entry point that invokes Classification → Risk → Threat → SWOT → Style in sequence
• Enforces quality gates: Validates outputs from every upstream methodology meet minimum standards
• Handles conflicts: Resolves parallel workflow collisions via timestamp-based precedence rules
• Mandates AI-driven metadata: All article titles, descriptions, and SEO keywords MUST be produced by the AI agent analysing the content — NEVER by script code or template strings. The AI agent passes --title and --description CLI flags to the generator.

---

🌳 Methodology Selection Decision Tree

Use this flowchart to determine which methodology to apply for a given analytical task:

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
flowchart TD
    Start([🎯 New Analysis Task]) --> Q1{What is the<br/>primary need?}

    Q1 -->|Categorize an EP event| CG[🏷️ Classification Guide<br/>Apply 7 dimensions]
    Q1 -->|Quantify political risk| RM[⚠️ Risk Methodology<br/>Likelihood × Impact]
    Q1 -->|Identify political threats| TF[🎯 Threat Framework<br/>6 Political Threat Dimensions]
    Q1 -->|Strategic assessment| SW[💼 SWOT Framework<br/>Evidence-based quadrants]
    Q1 -->|Write analysis article| SG[📝 Style Guide<br/>Select depth level]
    Q1 -->|Full pipeline analysis| AI[🤖 AI Analysis Guide<br/>Orchestrate all frameworks]

    CG --> Q2{Severity ≥ HIGH?}
    Q2 -->|Yes| RM
    Q2 -->|No| SG

    RM --> Q3{Risk Score ≥ 10?}
    Q3 -->|Yes| TF
    Q3 -->|No| SW

    TF --> SW
    SW --> SG
    SG --> AI

    AI --> Gate{Quality Gate<br/>≥ 7.0/10?}
    Gate -->|✅ Pass| Done([✅ Analysis Complete])
    Gate -->|❌ Fail| Revise[🔄 Revise from<br/>Weakest Dimension]
    Revise --> Q1

    style Start fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Q1 fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style CG fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style RM fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF
    style TF fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style SW fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style SG fill:#4A148C,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style AI fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Q2 fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style Q3 fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style Gate fill:#F57F17,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style Done fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Revise fill:#D84315,stroke:#BF360C,color:#FFFFFF

---

🔄 Methodology Integration Flow

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
sequenceDiagram
    participant WF as 🔄 Agentic Workflow
    participant DL as 📥 Data Download
    participant CLASS as 🏷️ Classification
    participant RISK as ⚠️ Risk Assessment
    participant SWOT as 💼 SWOT Analysis
    participant THREAT as 🎭 Threat Analysis
    participant SIG as 📈 Significance
    participant SYNTH as 🧩 Synthesis
    participant QG as ✅ Quality Gate
    participant ART as 📰 Article Generation

    WF->>DL: Fetch EP MCP feed data
    DL->>CLASS: Raw documents + metadata

    Note over CLASS,THREAT: AI performs ALL analysis<br/>(never scripted)

    CLASS->>RISK: Classification results
    CLASS->>SWOT: Document classification
    CLASS->>THREAT: Document classification

    par Parallel Analysis
        RISK->>SIG: Risk scores + cascading analysis
        SWOT->>SIG: SWOT matrices + strategic implications
        THREAT->>SIG: Threat profiles + kill chains
    end

    SIG->>SYNTH: Significance scores
    SYNTH->>QG: Synthesis summary

    QG-->>QG: Validate structure,<br/>evidence, Mermaid,<br/>confidence, citations
    QG->>ART: Approved analysis
    ART->>WF: HTML article + 14 translations

    Note over QG: Quality gate checks:<br/>✓ Evidence tables<br/>✓ Mermaid diagrams<br/>✓ EP procedure citations<br/>✓ Confidence labels<br/>✓ No stub content

---

🎯 Article-Type-Specific Methodology Selection

Different EP document types require different analytical emphasis. This matrix maps which methodologies are PRIMARY vs SUPPORTING for each workflow type:

Article Type	Classification	Risk	SWOT	Threat	Significance	Stakeholder	Unique Focus
Breaking News	🔴 PRIMARY	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	Real-time urgency scoring, political temperature spike detection
Motions	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	Per-resolution vote breakdown by group, defection pattern analysis
Propositions	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	Legislative pipeline stage, rapporteur influence, amendment success rates
Committee Reports	🔴 PRIMARY	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	Committee productivity, document classification by committee domain
Week Ahead	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	🔴 PRIMARY	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	Prospective risk landscape, scheduled debate preview, expected vote outcomes
Weekly Review	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	Cross-type trend detection, week-over-week pattern shifts
Month Ahead	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	Strategic political calendar, major policy decision forecast
Monthly Review	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	Legislative throughput, political group productivity, Grand Coalition scorecard

Reading the matrix: ✅ = always required for all types. 🔴 PRIMARY = the methodology that should receive the most analytical depth and word count for this article type. Each workflow must apply ALL methodologies but allocate more time and depth to PRIMARY ones.

Unique Analytical Sections Per Article Type

Each article type should produce unique analytical sections in its synthesis that no other workflow can produce:

Article Type	Template	Unique Section Name	What Makes It Unique
Breaking News	Significance	Breaking Urgency Rating	Real-time significance assessment with 6-hour refresh — only breaking workflow has this cadence
Motions	Threat	Defection Pattern Dashboard	Political group voting discipline per-resolution — only motion workflow analyses individual votes
Propositions	Risk	Legislative Pipeline Risk	Where the procedure sits (committee → plenary → trilogue → adoption) and risk of delay/amendment
Propositions	Stakeholder	Rapporteur Influence Scorecard	Rapporteur and shadow rapporteur influence mapping — unique to procedure-level analysis
Committee Reports	Stakeholder	Committee Productivity Matrix	Per-committee output volume, meeting frequency, document production rate
Committee Reports	Classification	Cross-Committee Comparison	Relative workload and output comparison across EP committees
Week Ahead	SWOT	Pre-Plenary Intelligence Brief	Forward-looking SWOT for upcoming plenary agenda — only week-ahead can provide this prospective view
Weekly Review	SWOT	Week-over-Week Trend Delta	How did this week's political temperature differ from last week? Only weekly scope enables this
Month Ahead	Risk	Strategic Calendar Risk Map	Forward-looking risk landscape tied to specific scheduled events (budget debates, EU summits)
Monthly Review	Synthesis	Grand Coalition Scorecard	Comprehensive monthly assessment of Grand Coalition legislative effectiveness and cohesion

---

✅ Quality Gate Requirements

All analysis produced under these methodologies must meet the following minimum quality requirements before publication:

Weighted Quality Score (Minimum 7.0/10)

Dimension	Weight	Criteria	Fail Indicators
Evidence	25%	Every claim cites EP MCP data; confidence levels stated; no opinion-only entries	Uncited claims, missing confidence, assertions without data
Depth	25%	Appropriate depth level (L1/L2/L3) applied; word count within range; citation count met	Wrong depth level, under minimum citations, superficial coverage
Structural	20%	Hack23 header present; metadata complete; Mermaid diagram included; structured tables used	Missing header, no diagram, placeholder content, broken formatting
Actionable	15%	Analysis includes concrete implications; stakeholder impact identified; forward-looking recommendations	Purely descriptive without implications, no stakeholder analysis
Neutrality	15%	Balanced perspective; no partisan framing; multiple viewpoints acknowledged; factual tone	One-sided framing, loaded language, missing counter-perspectives

Structural Checklist

• Hack23 header with metadata (Owner, Version, Date, Classification)
• At least one color-coded Mermaid diagram
• Classification completed across all 7 dimensions
• SWOT with ≥2 evidence-based entries per quadrant
• Risk score calculated using 5×5 Likelihood × Impact matrix
• Threat analysis using Political Threat Landscape (5-framework integrated methodology)
• Appropriate depth level selected and word/citation counts met
• Significance score (1–10) with justification

---

🚫 Anti-Patterns — What NOT To Do

The following practices are explicitly prohibited across all methodologies:

Anti-Pattern	Why It Fails	Correct Approach
Using STRIDE, DREAD, or PASTA	These are software security threat models, not political intelligence frameworks	Use Political Threat Landscape (6 dimensions), Diamond Model, Attack Trees, PESTLE, Scenario Planning, Kill Chain
Boilerplate summaries	Generic text adds no analytical value; wastes reader attention	Every paragraph must contain at least one EP data citation or concrete analytical insight
Claims without confidence levels	Ungraded assertions cannot be evaluated for reliability	Assign HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW confidence with source justification
Tables-only analysis	Data without narrative interpretation is not analysis	Tables must be accompanied by explanatory prose interpreting the data
Opinion without evidence	Subjective assertions undermine analytical credibility	All opinions must cite verifiable EP MCP data sources
Hardcoded Mermaid values	Static diagrams become stale and misleading	Use data-driven values sourced from EP MCP tool results
Shallow classification	Single-dimension classification misses complexity	Apply all 7 classification dimensions; score each independently
Stale SWOT entries	Entries older than 180 days without re-verification are unreliable	Enforce 180-day decay rule; re-verify or remove expired entries
Missing stakeholder analysis	Analysis without impact assessment has no actionable value	Identify affected political groups, MEPs, committees, and citizens
Ignoring multi-language requirements	Analysis must serve 14-language platform	Structure content for translation; avoid idioms and culture-specific references

---

🔗 ISMS Reference Adaptations

The analysis methodologies are adapted from Hack23's ISO 27001/NIST CSF/CIS Controls ISMS framework. The reference/ directory contains mapping documents showing how cybersecurity risk concepts translate to political intelligence:

Reference Document	ISMS Source	Political Adaptation
isms-classification-adaptation.md	ISO 27001 A.5.12–A.5.13	Multi-dimensional political event classification
isms-risk-assessment-adaptation.md	ISO 27001 A.8.8, NIST CSF ID.RA	Cascading political risk assessment
isms-style-guide-adaptation.md	ISO 27001 A.5.37	Evidence-based political writing standards
isms-threat-modeling-adaptation.md	ISO 27001 A.5.7, NIST CSF ID.RA-3	Multi-framework political threat modeling

---

🔒 ISMS Compliance Framework Mapping

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

Control	Title	Methodology Relevance
A.5.1	Policies for information security	All methodologies align with Hack23 ISMS policy framework
A.5.10	Acceptable use of information	Classification guide defines sensitivity-based data handling
A.5.33	Protection of records	Style guide enforces evidence citation and audit trail
A.8.3	Information access restriction	Sensitivity levels (PUBLIC/SENSITIVE/RESTRICTED) gate access
A.8.10	Information deletion	180-day SWOT decay rule ensures stale data is removed
A.8.28	Secure coding	AI analysis guide enforces structured, reviewable output with quality gates

NIST CSF 2.0 Functions

Function	Relevance to Methodologies
Identify (ID)	Classification guide identifies and categorizes EP events by sensitivity and impact
Protect (PR)	Style guide protects analytical quality through evidence requirements and anti-patterns
Detect (DE)	Threat framework detects political threats across 6 dimensions using multiple analytical models
Respond (RS)	Risk methodology provides quantified risk scores enabling proportionate response
Recover (RC)	SWOT framework supports strategic recovery planning through forward-looking opportunity analysis

CIS Controls v8.1

Control	Title	Methodology Relevance
Control 1	Inventory and Control of Enterprise Assets	Classification guide inventories and categorizes all EP data assets
Control 3	Data Protection	Sensitivity levels enforce appropriate handling for each data classification
Control 8	Audit Log Management	AI analysis guide requires documented quality gate assessments (audit trail)
Control 14	Security Awareness and Skills Training	Methodology documents serve as training material for AI agents and analysts
Control 16	Application Software Security	Quality gates enforce structured, validated analytical output

---

📰 Workflow-Specific Analytical Approach

Each agentic workflow applies the methodologies with unique emphasis tailored to its article type. The following shows which methodologies are primary vs. supporting for each workflow:

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
flowchart TD
    subgraph "🏷️ Classification"
        CG["Political Classification Guide"]
    end
    subgraph "⚠️ Risk"
        RM["Risk Methodology"]
    end
    subgraph "🎯 Threat"
        TF["Political Threat Framework"]
    end
    subgraph "💼 SWOT"
        SW["SWOT Framework"]
    end

    subgraph "📰 Workflow Article Types"
        BK["🔴 Breaking\n= CG + RM primary"]
        MO["📋 Motions\n= CG + TF primary"]
        PR["📜 Propositions\n= RM + SW primary"]
        CR["🏛️ Committee\n= RM + CG primary"]
        WA["📅 Week Ahead\n= SW + RM primary"]
        WR["📊 Weekly Review\n= CG + SW primary"]
        MA["📆 Month Ahead\n= SW + TF primary"]
        MR["📈 Monthly Review\n= ALL primary"]
    end

    CG --> BK & MO & CR & WR
    RM --> BK & PR & CR & WA & MR
    TF --> MO & MA & MR
    SW --> PR & WA & WR & MA & MR

    style CG fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#fff
    style RM fill:#E65100,stroke:#BF360C,color:#fff
    style TF fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#fff
    style SW fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#fff
    style BK fill:#dc3545,stroke:#b02a37,color:#fff
    style MO fill:#fd7e14,stroke:#ca6510,color:#fff
    style PR fill:#ffc107,stroke:#cc9a06,color:#000
    style CR fill:#198754,stroke:#146c43,color:#fff
    style WA fill:#0d6efd,stroke:#0a58ca,color:#fff
    style WR fill:#6f42c1,stroke:#59359a,color:#fff
    style MA fill:#d63384,stroke:#ab296a,color:#fff
    style MR fill:#0dcaf0,stroke:#0aa2c0,color:#000

Unique Analytics Per Article Type

Workflow	Primary Methodology Focus	Unique Analytical Requirements
Breaking News	Classification (urgency rating) + Risk (impact severity)	⚡ Real-time significance scoring; only TODAY's items qualify; 6-hour refresh cycle
Motions	Classification (resolution type) + Threat (coalition shifts)	🗳️ Per-resolution vote breakdown by political group; defection pattern analysis
Propositions	Risk (legislative pipeline risk) + SWOT (strategic implications)	📜 Procedure stage tracking; committee assignment impact; rapporteur influence mapping
Committee Reports	Risk (committee output risk) + Classification (document type)	🏛️ Per-committee productivity analysis; cross-committee comparison; meeting agenda review
Week Ahead	SWOT (opportunity identification) + Risk (upcoming vote risks)	📅 Forward-looking agenda analysis; scheduled vote significance; pre-plenary intelligence
Weekly Review	Classification (outcome categorization) + SWOT (accomplishment assessment)	📊 Vote outcome impact; legislative progress measurement; political group performance
Month Ahead	SWOT (strategic outlook) + Threat (emerging democratic threats)	📆 Legislative calendar analysis; cross-institutional dynamics; emerging policy trends
Monthly Review	ALL methodologies at equal weight	📈 Comprehensive trend analysis; inter-temporal pattern detection; political landscape evolution

Key principle: Every article type must produce analysis that is unique and specific to its focus area. A breaking news analysis looks fundamentally different from a monthly review analysis — different data sources, different methodology emphasis, different analytical depth.

---

📝 Changelog

v3.3 (2026-05-03)

Document	Change	Rationale
examples/ (new directory)	Added four worked "good-output" excerpts under examples/ — SWOT, stakeholder map, risk matrix, scenario forecast — each cross-linked to its companion methodology section and template, with a Pass-2 checklist that mirrors the methodology's quality-signal language.	Closes the issue's "worked example" deliverable; gives an AI agent a concrete, evidence-dense reference to diff Pass-1 drafts against during Pass-2 read-back.
test/unit/methodology-catalog.test.js (new test)	Drift-guard asserts the four-way match between artifact-catalog.md, reference-quality-thresholds.json, per-artifact-methodologies.md, and analysis/templates/. Six assertions: catalog parses ≥54 rows (tight enough to catch any dropped section), every template link resolves, every methodology link resolves, every per-artifact-methodologies.md#anchor resolves to a real ### section, every numeric breaking floor in the catalog has a row in the threshold registry, and every threshold path is known to the catalog (reverse check).	Promotes the catalog ↔ thresholds ↔ templates ↔ per-artifact-methodologies invariant from a manual review item to a CI-enforced contract; future drift fails fast in unit tests rather than during a 60-minute agentic run.
examples/README.md (new)	Index + anti-patterns + "how to add a new example" pointer.	Makes the examples directory self-documenting and discoverable from this index.

v3.2 (2026-04-25)

Document	Change	Rationale
README.md (v3.1→v3.2)	Headline corrected from “seven frameworks” to “fourteen interlocking methodologies”; the seven core frameworks are kept and the seven supporting methodologies (Synthesis · Strategic Extensions · Per-Document · Structural Metadata · Electoral Domain · IMF + WB Indicator Mappings) are now first-class in the index	Documentation drift — directory carries 18 docs; old headline understated the discipline
README.md (v3.1→v3.2)	Template count updated 39 → 51 across catalog and template-pairing prose	Reconciliation with disk-truth: analysis/templates/ carries 51 numbered templates plus the README
README.md (v3.1→v3.2), artifact-catalog.md, per-artifact-methodologies.md	“Legacy validator was purged” language replaced with the correct two-layer fact: the duplicate src/utils/validate-analysis-completeness.ts was purged, but the surviving scripts/validate-analysis-completeness.js remains the Stage-C completeness gate (npm run validate-analysis -- <runDir>)	Drift fix — the surviving CLI is wired into package.json and is the truth-source per test/unit/validate-analysis-completeness.test.js; READMEs incorrectly described it as removed
templates/README.md (v3.1→v3.2)	Cover line updated 39 → 51; v3.2 changelog entry added; badge dates and Next-Review aligned with methodology release	Same reconciliation as above
political-threat-framework.md (v4.0→v4.1)	Date refresh + cross-link tightening to the five threat-assessment templates (political-threat-landscape, actor-threat-profiles, consequence-trees, legislative-disruption, threat-analysis); explicit “STRIDE rejected” statement preserved	Routine v3.2 release alignment
synthesis-methodology.md (v1.0→v1.1), strategic-extensions-methodology.md, per-document-methodology.md, structural-metadata-methodology.md, electoral-domain-methodology.md, osint-tradecraft-standards.md, political-classification-guide.md, political-risk-methodology.md, political-swot-framework.md, political-style-guide.md, imf-indicator-mapping.md, worldbank-indicator-mapping.md	Metadata refreshed to v3.2 / 2026-04-25 / Next Review 2026-07-31; cross-references between methodologies tightened so each ### artifact section in per-artifact-methodologies.md resolves both ways	Single coherent v3.2 release — every methodology stamped with the same effective date and review window
reference-quality-thresholds.json	Floors held stable at v3.1 levels; no artifact line-floor was lowered; missing artifact rows added so the validator stops emitting THRESHOLD_MISSING warnings on rare extended artifacts	Avoids retroactively failing older runs while closing the catalog → thresholds gap

v3.1 (2026-04-06)

Document	Change	Rationale
ai-driven-analysis-guide.md (v4.0→v4.1)	Added Cross-Session Intelligence Methodology section: Bayesian updating protocol, cross-session correlation, data stasis detection, confidence level changes	Formalises the cross-session correlation demonstrated in 2026-04-05/breaking-2 analysis run
ai-driven-analysis-guide.md (v4.0→v4.1)	Added Quality Dimension Mapping table: methodology ↔ TypeScript article-quality-scorer.ts alignment	Documents the mapping between 5 methodology dimensions and 5 TypeScript scorer constants
political-style-guide.md (v2.0→v2.1)	Added Recess and Data-Sparse Period Guidance section: depth level selection, EP API feed availability, evidence threshold adjustments, anti-patterns	Easter recess (27 March–13 April) exposed need for data-sparse period analytical guidance
political-threat-framework.md (v3.0→v3.1)	Added Temporal Decay Model for threat assessments: severity decay table, confidence decay, re-verification rules, Mermaid diagram	Mirrors SWOT framework's 180-day confidence decay; threat assessments lacked equivalent temporal relevance modelling
political-risk-methodology.md (v2.0→v2.1)	Added EP API Data Availability as Risk Factor: data availability risk matrix, core feed degradation impact, recess-period risk scoring guidance	EP API degradation during recess was not modelled as a risk dimension
political-classification-guide.md (v2.0→v2.1)	Added Recess-Period Event Classification Rules: urgency adjustment table, recess-active event types, anti-patterns	Classification urgency matrix did not account for recess periods
README.md (v3.0→v3.1)	Version bump, changelog added	Tracks methodology evolution

v3.0 (2026-03-31)

• Initial comprehensive methodology suite: 6 documents covering Classification, Risk, Threat, SWOT, Style, and AI-Driven Analysis
• Adapted from Hack23 ISMS framework and Riksdagsmonitor methodologies

---

🔗 Related Documentation

• Architecture — C4 system architecture and deployment model
• Security Architecture — Security controls and compliance mapping
• Data Model — European Parliament data structures and relationships
• Flowcharts — Data processing workflows and analysis pipelines
• SWOT Analysis — Platform-level strategic assessment
• Threat Model — System-level threat analysis
• Workflows — CI/CD pipelines including analysis generation
• Analysis README — Parent analysis directory documentation
• Classification Policy — Hack23 ISMS data classification policy
• AI Policy — Hack23 ISMS AI governance policy

---