🌳 Consequence Trees Template

May 3, 2026 · View on GitHub

📌 Template Instructions: Copy to analysis/daily/{date}/{article-type}-run{N}/threat-assessment/consequence-trees.md. Per‑threat consequence tree mapping action → first‑order consequence → second‑order consequence → democratic outcome. Include a convergence diagram showing where multiple threats hit the same outcome, and an intervention‑points map. See methodologies/per-artifact-methodologies.md §consequence-trees.

🎯 Purpose: Structured consequence mapping showing how named threats cascade through multiple causal levels to reach democratic outcomes (rule‑of‑law erosion, electoral capture, single‑market fragmentation, etc.), with explicit intervention‑point identification. Multi‑national extension over Riksdagsmonitor: every consequence chain carries cluster impact tags so cross‑border cascades surface explicitly.

📋 Document Metadata

Field	Value
Report ID	`[REQUIRED: CT-YYYY-MM-DD-runNN]`
Period	`[REQUIRED: YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD]`
Threats Analyzed	`[REQUIRED: count ≥3]`
Tree Depth	`[REQUIRED: ≥3 levels per tree]`
Convergence Outcomes Identified	`[REQUIRED: count ≥1]`
Confidence	`[REQUIRED: 🟢 HIGH / 🟡 MEDIUM / 🔴 LOW]`
PIR Tags	`[REQUIRED]`

#	Threat name	Source actor / mechanism	Cluster origin	Triggering event window
1	`[REQUIRED]`	`[REQUIRED]`	`[N/W/S/CE/external]`	`[REQUIRED: date range]`
2	`[REQUIRED]`	`[REQUIRED]`	`[…]`	`[REQUIRED]`
3	`[REQUIRED]`	`[REQUIRED]`	`[…]`	`[REQUIRED]`

2️⃣ Consequence Tree — Threat 1: `[REQUIRED: name]`

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"}}}%%
flowchart TD
    ROOT[🔴 ACTION:<br/>Threat 1] -->|P=high| FIRST1[🟧 1st‑order:<br/>Consequence A]
    ROOT -->|P=med| FIRST2[🟧 1st‑order:<br/>Consequence B]
    ROOT -->|P=low| FIRST3[🟧 1st‑order:<br/>Consequence C]

    FIRST1 -->|sev=high| SECOND1[🟡 2nd‑order:<br/>Consequence A1]
    FIRST1 -->|sev=med| SECOND2[🟡 2nd‑order:<br/>Consequence A2]
    FIRST2 -->|sev=med| SECOND3[🟡 2nd‑order:<br/>Consequence B1]
    FIRST3 -->|sev=high| SECOND4[🟡 2nd‑order:<br/>Consequence C1]

    SECOND1 -->|impact| OUTCOME1[⚠️ Democratic outcome:<br/>Final state X]
    SECOND2 -->|impact| OUTCOME2[⚠️ Democratic outcome:<br/>Final state Y]
    SECOND3 -->|impact| OUTCOME1
    SECOND4 -->|impact| OUTCOME3[⚠️ Democratic outcome:<br/>Final state Z]

    classDef root fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#ffffff;
    classDef first fill:#FF9800,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000;
    classDef second fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#000000;
    classDef out fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0A3F7F,color:#ffffff;
    class ROOT root;
    class FIRST1,FIRST2,FIRST3 first;
    class SECOND1,SECOND2,SECOND3,SECOND4 second;
    class OUTCOME1,OUTCOME2,OUTCOME3 out;

Tree depth: ≥3 levels (action → first‑order → second‑order → democratic outcome)

Branch table — Threat 1:

Branch path	Probability (WEP band)	Severity	Cluster impact	Mechanism (≥40 words)
ROOT → A → A1 → X	`[Almost Certain / Very Likely / Likely / Even Chance / Unlikely / Very Unlikely / Almost No Chance]`	`[High/Med/Low]`	`[N/W/S/CE]`	`[REQUIRED: ≥40 words]`
ROOT → A → A2 → Y	`[…]`	`[…]`	`[…]`	`[REQUIRED]`
ROOT → B → B1 → X	`[…]`	`[…]`	`[…]`	`[REQUIRED]`
ROOT → C → C1 → Z	`[…]`	`[…]`	`[…]`	`[REQUIRED]`

(≥4 branches enumerated.)

3️⃣ Consequence Tree — Threat 2: `[REQUIRED]`

(Repeat full Mermaid + branch table structure.)

4️⃣ Consequence Tree — Threat 3: `[REQUIRED]`

(Repeat full Mermaid + branch table structure.)

5️⃣ Cross‑Tree Convergence Map

Where multiple threats funnel into the same democratic outcome — these are the highest‑priority intervention points.

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"}}}%%
flowchart LR
    T1[🔴 Threat 1] --> CONV1[⚠️ Convergence outcome A]
    T2[🔴 Threat 2] --> CONV1
    T1 --> CONV2[⚠️ Convergence outcome B]
    T3[🔴 Threat 3] --> CONV2
    T3 --> CONV3[⚠️ Outcome C — single‑threat]

    classDef threat fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#ffffff;
    classDef conv fill:#FF9800,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000;
    classDef single fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#000000;
    class T1,T2,T3 threat;
    class CONV1,CONV2 conv;
    class CONV3 single;

Convergence narrative: [REQUIRED: ≥100 words — which democratic outcome is hit by the most threats, why this matters more than single‑threat outcomes, and what the compound effect would look like in practice.]

6️⃣ Intervention‑Points Catalog

For each tree, identify the earliest branch where intervention can prevent escalation to the democratic outcome — and the institutional actor empowered to act.

#	Tree	Branch intercepted	Intervention lever	Empowered actor	Time horizon	Reversibility
1	Threat 1	`[REQUIRED: branch]`	`[REQUIRED: ≥30 words]`	`[Commission / EP committee / Council / Court / member state]`	`[weeks]`	`[Hard / Soft]`
2	Threat 2	`[REQUIRED]`	`[REQUIRED]`	`[…]`	`[weeks]`	`[…]`
3	Threat 3	`[REQUIRED]`	`[REQUIRED]`	`[…]`	`[weeks]`	`[…]`
4	Convergence A	`[REQUIRED]`	`[REQUIRED]`	`[…]`	`[weeks]`	`[…]`

(≥4 intervention points; convergence outcomes get a dedicated row.)

Intervention narrative: [REQUIRED: ≥80 words — which intervention has highest leverage and which is most reversible if applied prematurely.]

7️⃣ Cross‑Cluster Cascade Impact

Cluster	Threat 1 cascade severity	Threat 2 cascade severity	Threat 3 cascade severity	Composite
Northern	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`
Western	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`
Southern	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`
Central‑Eastern	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`	`[🟢/🟡/🔴]`

Cluster narrative: [REQUIRED: ≥60 words — which cluster bears the largest aggregated cascade severity.]

8️⃣ Reader Briefing — Plain Language

📰 Newsroom hook: [REQUIRED: one‑sentence summary.]

The threat that matters most this period: [REQUIRED: ≥40 words]
What it could lead to in plain language: [REQUIRED: ≥40 words]
The earliest moment to act: [REQUIRED: ≥40 words]
Who is empowered to intervene: [REQUIRED: ≥40 words]

9️⃣ Data Sources & Provenance

EP MCP tools used: correlate_intelligence, early_warning_system, analyze_coalition_dynamics, track_legislation, get_procedures (REQUIRED: ≥3)

Source	Type	Admiralty	Link
`[REQUIRED]`	`[Primary EP / Court / Press / Analyst]`	`[A1‑F6]`	`[URL]`
`[REQUIRED]`	`[…]`	`[…]`	`[…]`

🔟 Confidence & Caveats

Overall confidence: [REQUIRED: 🟢/🟡/🔴]
Top uncertainty: [REQUIRED: ≥40 words]
Counter‑evidence: [REQUIRED: ≥30 words on the strongest reason any of these trees might NOT cascade as drawn.]
Validity window: [REQUIRED: how long these trees remain accurate before next refresh.]

🛠️ Worked example — consequence tree on EPP whip-discipline failure

%%{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
  R["Root: EPP whip fails on AI-Act industry amendment<br/>(47 defections, 3 pp cohesion drop)"]
  R --> L1A["1st-order: Amendment passes"]
  R --> L1B["1st-order: Rapporteur loses authority"]
  R --> L1C["1st-order: Coalition partners signal concern"]

  L1A --> L2A["2nd-order: Industry framing wins<br/>(scope narrowing in trilogue)"]
  L1B --> L2B["2nd-order: Rapporteur replaced<br/>or shadow-rapporteur led"]
  L1C --> L2C["2nd-order: S&D + Renew demand<br/>whip recommitment"]

  L2A --> L3A["3rd-order: AI Act enforcement<br/>weakened in MS implementation"]
  L2B --> L3B["3rd-order: Future EPP-led files<br/>face credibility deficit"]
  L2C --> L3C["3rd-order: Coalition agreement<br/>renegotiation pressure"]

  classDef root fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#fff;
  classDef l1 fill:#FF9800,stroke:#E65100,color:#fff;
  classDef l2 fill:#FFC107,stroke:#FF6F00,color:#000;
  classDef l3 fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#fff;
  class R root
  class L1A,L1B,L1C l1
  class L2A,L2B,L2C l2
  class L3A,L3B,L3C l3

Convergence: L3A and L3C both lead to weaker AI-governance regime in 2027 if combined; this is the most-likely tail outcome (𝑃≈25%).

Counter-evidence: L2C may strengthen rather than weaken coalition if S&D/Renew pressure produces a credible commitment from EPP leadership. This branch carries 𝑃≈30% in the probability-redistribution.

Validity window: 4-6 weeks. Re-evaluate after the next IMCO vote or coalition coordination meeting.

🚫 Anti-patterns — consequence-tree failures

Anti-pattern	Why it fails	Correct approach
Single-branch tree	Misses alternatives	≥3 branches per level
Tree without root event	Floating speculation	Anchor to a specific named event
Leaves without probability	Cannot rank scenarios	Each leaf carries 𝑃 estimate
Tree that converges to one outcome	Hidden determinism	Show convergence AND divergence paths
Mermaid alone, no narrative	Visual without analysis	Each level: ≥1 paragraph of explanation
5+ levels deep	Loses tractability	Cap at 3 levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd order)
No counter-evidence	Single-perspective failure	§Counter-evidence required
Static tree, no validity window	Tree may stale	"Re-evaluate by date X"

🎯 EP MCP tool inputs

Tool	Used for
`track_legislation`	Procedure-anchored root events
`analyze_coalition_dynamics`	Coalition-stress branches
`monitor_legislative_pipeline`	Pipeline-impact branches
`get_voting_records`	Discipline-failure root events
`get_procedure_events`	Trilogue-collapse branches

🔗 Controlling methodology cross-references

../methodologies/political-threat-framework.md — threat → consequence chains
../methodologies/strategic-extensions-methodology.md §Scenarios
scenario-forecast.md — scenarios feed root events

✅ Stage-C completeness signals

Line floor: 150 lines
≥ 4 Mermaid trees (one per threat root + convergence map)
1st / 2nd / 3rd order labelled per branch
Probability per leaf
Counter-evidence + validity window present

Document Control: /analysis/daily/{date}/{type}-run{N}/threat-assessment/consequence-trees.md · Template v2.2 · Depth floor: 150 lines · Mermaid diagrams: ≥4 (one tree per threat + convergence map) · Reader briefing: required.