🎭 Actor Mapping Template

📌 Template Instructions: Copy to analysis/daily/{date}/{article-type}-run{N}/classification/actor-mapping.md. Map the political actors in play around the period's dominant issue: power, position, network ties, and information flow. See methodologies/per-artifact-methodologies.md §actor-mapping.

🎯 Purpose: Structured actor inventory with influence × position grid, alliance network, and information‑flow map. Multi‑national extension over Riksdagsmonitor: every actor row carries member‑state cluster + EP political group + committee role tags so cross‑border alignment patterns are explicit.

---

📋 Document Metadata

Field	Value
Report ID	[REQUIRED: AM-YYYY-MM-DD-runNN]
Issue Anchor	[REQUIRED: file → which issue these actors are mapped against]
Actors Mapped	[REQUIRED: count ≥10 across ≥4 distinct types]
Confidence	[REQUIRED: 🟢 HIGH / 🟡 MEDIUM / 🔴 LOW]
PIR Tags	[REQUIRED]

---

1️⃣ Actor Roster

#	Actor	Type	EP Group	Member-state	Committee role	Power (1‑5)	Position on issue
1	[REQUIRED]	[Individual MEP / Political group / Committee / Council formation / Commissioner / Member-state delegation / Sectoral lobby / NGO / Member-state head of govt]	[EPP / S&D / Renew / Greens / ECR / The Left / PfE / ESN / NI / —]	[ISO‑2 / cluster]	[Chair / Vice‑chair / Rapporteur / Shadow / Member / —]	[1‑5]	[Strong-Pro / Pro / Neutral / Anti / Strong-Anti]
2	[REQUIRED]	[…]	[…]	[…]	[…]	[1-5]	[…]
3	[REQUIRED]	[…]	[…]	[…]	[…]	[1-5]	[…]
4	[REQUIRED]	[…]	[…]	[…]	[…]	[1-5]	[…]
5	[REQUIRED]	[…]	[…]	[…]	[…]	[1-5]	[…]

(≥10 rows, ≥4 distinct types.)

---

2️⃣ Influence × Position Grid

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"quadrant1Fill":"#2E7D32","quadrant2Fill":"#FF9800","quadrant3Fill":"#1565C0","quadrant4Fill":"#D32F2F","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 Actor Influence × Position
    x-axis "Anti issue" --> "Pro issue"
    y-axis "Low influence" --> "High influence"
    quadrant-1 "🟢 Champions"
    quadrant-2 "🟧 Resistant power"
    quadrant-3 "🔵 Latent allies"
    quadrant-4 "🔴 Active blockers"
    "Actor 1": [0.8, 0.9]
    "Actor 2": [0.7, 0.6]
    "Actor 3": [0.3, 0.7]
    "Actor 4": [0.2, 0.4]
    "Actor 5": [0.6, 0.3]

Reading: Top‑right = champions (high power, pro). Top‑left = active blockers. Bottom = lower-leverage actors. Newsroom focus naturally falls on the diagonal: high‑power blockers vs. high‑power champions.

---

3️⃣ Alliance & Tension Network

Color‑coded edge graph: green = alliance, red = tension/blockade.

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"}}}%%
flowchart LR
    EPP[🔵 EPP] -->|aligned| RENEW[🟡 Renew]
    EPP -->|tension| GREENS[🟢 Greens/EFA]
    SD[🔴 S&D] -->|aligned| GREENS
    ECR[⚫ ECR] -->|tension| GREENS
    LEFT[🟣 The Left] -->|tension| EPP
    PFE[🟤 PfE] -->|tension| RENEW

    classDef ally stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:3px;
    classDef tense stroke:#D32F2F,stroke-width:3px;
    linkStyle 0 stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:3px
    linkStyle 1 stroke:#D32F2F,stroke-width:3px
    linkStyle 2 stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:3px
    linkStyle 3 stroke:#D32F2F,stroke-width:3px
    linkStyle 4 stroke:#D32F2F,stroke-width:3px
    linkStyle 5 stroke:#D32F2F,stroke-width:3px

Network narrative: [REQUIRED: ≥80 words describing the strongest alliance, the most consequential tension, and the bridging actor (if any).]

---

4️⃣ Top‑3 Power Brokers — Profiles

For the three actors with the highest power × salience on this issue.

Power Broker 1: [REQUIRED: name + role]

Influence (1‑5): [#] · Position: [Strong-Pro / Pro / Neutral / Anti / Strong-Anti] · Confidence: [🟢/🟡/🔴]

Why they matter:

[REQUIRED: ≥100 words — institutional levers (rapporteurship, committee chair, group whip), past behaviour pattern, current incentives, and one specific recent move evidencing the position.]

What would shift their position:

[REQUIRED: ≥40 words — observable trigger that has historically moved this actor.]

---

Power Broker 2: [REQUIRED]

(Repeat structure)

---

Power Broker 3: [REQUIRED]

(Repeat structure)

---

5️⃣ Information‑Flow Map

Who briefs whom, who leaks to whom, who has cross‑institutional access (Council, Commission, member‑state capitals)?

Source actor	Channel	Receiver actor	Information type
[REQUIRED]	[Coordinator briefing / Commission staff / Permanent rep / NGO / Press]	[REQUIRED]	[REQUIRED]
[REQUIRED]	[…]	[…]	[…]
[REQUIRED]	[…]	[…]	[…]

Flow narrative: [REQUIRED: ≥60 words on whose information advantage matters most.]

---

6️⃣ Reader Briefing — Plain Language

• Who's pushing this: [REQUIRED: ≥30 words]
• Who's blocking: [REQUIRED: ≥30 words]
• Who's the swing vote: [REQUIRED: ≥30 words]
• What to watch next: [REQUIRED: ≥30 words]

📰 One‑sentence newsroom hook: [REQUIRED]

---

7️⃣ Data Sources & Provenance

EP MCP tools used: get_meps, get_committee_info, analyze_coalition_dynamics, get_voting_records, network_analysis, assess_mep_influence (REQUIRED: ≥3)

Source	Type	Admiralty	Link
[REQUIRED]	[Primary EP / Council / Press / Sectoral]	[A1‑F6]	[URL]

---

8️⃣ Confidence & Caveats

• Overall confidence: [REQUIRED: 🟢/🟡/🔴]
• Top uncertainty: [REQUIRED: ≥40 words]
• Validity window: [REQUIRED: how long this map remains accurate before next refresh]

---

9️⃣ EP MCP Tool Inputs

EP MCP tool	Used for which section	Notes
get_meps / get_current_meps	§1 Actor Roster (named MEPs, group, country)	Filter by committee for rapporteur scan.
get_committee_info	§1 Roster (chair, vice-chairs, coordinators)	abbreviation lookup for ENVI/AGRI/etc.
get_mep_details	§2 Per-actor influence dossier	Personal data — GDPR-audited access.
assess_mep_influence	§3 Influence centrality scores	5-dimension weighted model.
network_analysis	§3 Influence-edge inference	Committee co-membership network.
analyze_mep_attendance / track_mep_attendance	§4 Activity proxy	Attendance % feeds influence weighting.
analyze_legislative_effectiveness	§4 Output proxy	Reports authored, amendments adopted.
get_speeches	§5 Information Flows (who frames the debate)	Speech volume + topic-tag distribution.
comparative_intelligence	§6 Cross-actor comparisons	2-10 MEP cross-reference.

---

🔟 Worked Pass-1 → Pass-2 Example (AI-Office implementing-act actor map)

❌ Pass-1 (thin, 23 words):

"Several MEPs are key on AI Act. The rapporteur is important. Some shadow-rapporteurs disagree. Committee chairs influence the timing."

✅ Pass-2 (compliant, 110 words, sourced):

Rapporteur Dragoş Tudorache (Renew, RO, ITRE coordinator, influence score 81/100 per assess_mep_influence) holds drafting agenda. LIBE shadow Birgit Sippel (S&D, DE, civil-liberties spokesperson, score 74) anchors fundamental-rights amendments. EPP shadow Axel Voss (DE, JURI vice-chair, score 78) is the right-flank guardrail. ITRE chair Borys Budka (EPP, PL, score 69) controls calendar. ECR shadow Patryk Jaki (PL, score 62) — likely procedural-amendment vector per network_analysis (84 % committee co-membership with PfE). Greens/EFA shadow Sergey Lagodinsky (DE, score 67) bridges digital-rights NGOs. PfE position via Mathilde Androuët (FR, ID-PfE successor, score 41). Net: 6 named MEPs control >70 % of the floor-amendment outcome.

---

1️⃣1️⃣ Worked 12-Actor Roster Table (AI-Office implementing-act)

#	MEP	Group	Country	Committee role	Influence	Stance
1	Dragoş Tudorache	Renew	RO	ITRE coordinator + Rapporteur	81	Lead — proportionate enforcement
2	Birgit Sippel	S&D	DE	LIBE shadow	74	Strengthen fundamental-rights
3	Axel Voss	EPP	DE	JURI vice-chair (EPP shadow)	78	Limit business burden
4	Borys Budka	EPP	PL	ITRE chair	69	Schedule control
5	Patryk Jaki	ECR	PL	LIBE shadow	62	Procedural amendments
6	Sergey Lagodinsky	Greens/EFA	DE	LIBE shadow	67	NGO bridge
7	Mathilde Androuët	PfE	FR	LIBE	41	Reject framework
8	Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann	Renew	DE	LIBE	71	Renew-internal dissident
9	Brando Benifei	S&D	IT	IMCO + AI Act co-rapporteur (legacy)	76	Continuity from primary act
10	Iratxe García Pérez	S&D	ES	S&D group leader	88	Whip-discipline anchor
11	Manfred Weber	EPP	DE	EPP group leader	92	Coalition broker
12	Bas Eickhout	Greens/EFA	NL	Greens/EFA co-leader	79	Floor-vote pivot

Coverage signal: ≥1 MEP from each major group (EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, ECR, PfE) ✅; rapporteur + shadows + chair + coordinators all present ✅.

---

1️⃣2️⃣ Worked Influence-Edge Mermaid Diagram

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryBorderColor":"#1565C0","lineColor":"#9E9E9E","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800"}}}%%
flowchart LR
    Tudorache((Tudorache<br/>Renew/RO<br/>RAPPORTEUR)):::lead
    Weber((Weber<br/>EPP/DE)):::epp
    Garcia((García<br/>S&D/ES)):::sd
    Sippel((Sippel<br/>S&D/DE)):::sd
    Voss((Voss<br/>EPP/DE)):::epp
    Budka((Budka<br/>EPP/PL<br/>CHAIR)):::epp
    Jaki((Jaki<br/>ECR/PL)):::ecr
    Lagodinsky((Lagodinsky<br/>Greens/DE)):::greens
    Tudorache -->|drafts| Sippel
    Tudorache -->|negotiates| Voss
    Weber -->|whips| Voss
    Weber -->|whips| Budka
    Garcia -->|whips| Sippel
    Budka -->|schedules| Tudorache
    Jaki -->|tactical-amends| Voss
    Lagodinsky -->|coalition-bridge| Sippel
    classDef lead fill:#1565C0,color:#ffffff,stroke:#1565C0
    classDef epp fill:#2E7D32,color:#ffffff,stroke:#2E7D32
    classDef sd fill:#D32F2F,color:#ffffff,stroke:#D32F2F
    classDef ecr fill:#FF9800,color:#000000,stroke:#FF9800
    classDef greens fill:#FFC107,color:#000000,stroke:#FFC107

---

1️⃣3️⃣ Anti-patterns — REJECT on Pass-2 Review

#	Banned pattern	Why it fails
1	Roster <12 named MEPs OR missing rapporteur / shadows / chair	Coverage floor unmet.
2	Influence score with no assess_mep_influence citation	Score is judgment-only; flag LOW.
3	Roster missing ≥1 MEP from each major group (EPP/S&D/Renew/Greens/ECR/PfE)	Group-coverage floor unmet.
4	Mermaid diagram with <6 edges or no group-colour classDef	Visual contract violated.
5	Stance column reads "supportive" without amendment / speech / vote citation	Unsourced political claim.
6	"Power broker" identification without network_analysis centrality score	Generic power-talk.
7	Personal-data exposure beyond public-record (private contact / family info)	GDPR violation; access-logged.

---

1️⃣4️⃣ Cross-References — Controlling Methodology

• ../methodologies/per-artifact-methodologies.md#actor-mapping — construction rules.
• ../methodologies/political-classification-guide.md — group + role taxonomy.
• ../methodologies/osint-tradecraft-standards.md — Admiralty grade per influence claim.
• ./stakeholder-map.md — institutional view; this artifact is individual-MEP view.
• ./coalition-dynamics.md — group-level aggregate view.
• AI Policy + GDPR audit trail: get_mep_details access is logged per analysis/methodologies/osint-tradecraft-standards.md §personal-data.

---

1️⃣5️⃣ Stage-C Completeness Signals

scripts/validate-analysis-completeness.js checks for this artifact:

Check	Threshold	Source
Line floor	≥130 lines	reference-quality-thresholds.json
Required H2 substrings	"Actor Roster", "Influence", "Alliance", "Power Brokers", "Information", "Reader Briefing"	structuralRequirements.requiredSections
Mermaid block	≥2 (roster + influence-edge flowchart)	mermaidRequired
Tradecraft markers	Influence score per actor; Admiralty grade per stance claim	osint-tradecraft-standards.md
Source diversity	≥3 EP MCP tools (must include get_meps + assess_mep_influence)	sourceDiversityRequired
Reader briefing	Required For Citizens / Plain Language block	readerBlockRequired

---

Document Control: /analysis/daily/{date}/{type}-run{N}/classification/actor-mapping.md · Template v2.2 · Depth floor: 130 lines · Mermaid diagrams: ≥2 · Reader briefing: required.