📜 Deep Political Analysis Template

May 24, 2026 · View on GitHub

📌 Template Instructions: Copy to analysis/daily/{date}/{article-type}-run{N}/existing/deep-analysis.md (the existing/ folder is the canonical location for long-form prose artifacts used by motions, propositions, and month-in-review workflows). See methodologies/per-artifact-methodologies.md §deep-analysis.

🎯 Purpose: Long-form political intelligence prose (4 000–10 000 words) in the style of The Economist's "Charlemagne" column or The Financial Times' Brussels Briefing. Where synthesis-summary.md gives the 5-minute read, deep-analysis.md gives the 30-minute read — the reader wants narrative depth, procedural colour, coalition dynamics, and the political why.

🖋️ Voice: Confident but evidence-anchored; analytical, not partisan; names specific actors, procedures, and dates; favours declarative sentences over hedging. Every paragraph earns its place by advancing the argument or presenting a named piece of evidence.

📋 Document Metadata

FieldValue
Report Title[REQUIRED: specific headline — the political thesis, not a generic label]
Date[REQUIRED: YYYY-MM-DD]
Workflow[REQUIRED: e.g. motions-run46]
Analysis Period[REQUIRED: e.g. 2026-01-01 to 2026-04-16]
Confidence[REQUIRED: 🟢 HIGH / 🟡 MEDIUM / 🔴 LOW — explain in body]
Method[REQUIRED: e.g. DEGRADED MODE (individual text content unavailable) vs. FULL DATA]
Target length[REQUIRED: 4 000 / 6 000 / 10 000 words]

Executive Summary

A single paragraph of ≥200 words that states the political thesis of the period and names the evidence base. The paragraph:

  • Names the institution (European Parliament) and the period.
  • States the single most important political claim the analysis makes — expressed as a WEP estimative-probability band with an explicit time horizon (per osint-tradecraft-standards.md §3.1) — e.g. "The grand coalition is Likely (55–80%) to hold through the June plenary…"
  • Opens with an ICD 203 BLUF sentence in the form: [analytic judgement] [WEP band] [time horizon] [confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] because [one-clause rationale].
  • Cites two or three numeric anchors (seat share, RCV count, resolution count) with Admiralty-grade source references (§2) — e.g. [A1] for EP roll-call records.
  • Names the dominant coalition and its approximate cohesion.
  • Signals the forward implication.

Example opening: "The European Parliament's first quarter of 2026 produced an unprecedented 567 roll-call votes and 180 resolutions — both records that, when set against the corresponding 2025 figures [A1], reveal a parliamentary body operating at roughly triple its prior-year cadence; the grand coalition is Likely to sustain this pace through Q2 (HIGH confidence)…"

1️⃣ Structural Thesis

Section length: ≥400 words.

State the period's dominant political structure and explain why it matters. Name the clusters of activity (e.g. geopolitical assertion + social contract renewal + trade countermeasures) and show that they constitute an integrated programme rather than coincidental adjacencies.

Requirements:

  • ≥3 named policy clusters with ≥2 named texts per cluster.
  • Coalition footprint (which coalition carried this programme) with a cohesion %.
  • ≥1 historical comparison (prior term / prior year).
  • ≥1 Mermaid diagram or structured table grounding the thesis.

2️⃣ Crystallisation Moment — The Session That Defined the Period

Section length: ≥500 words.

Every politically productive period has a single session, vote, or decision that crystallised its character. Identify it explicitly and write a narrative-rich analysis:

Requirements:

  • Name the session with its dates, location, and format (strasbourg / brussels mini-plenary / extraordinary).
  • Count the texts adopted and RCVs held.
  • Cover the architectural political argument: which policy domains were spanned simultaneously.
  • Cover the procedural angle: Article references (TFEU), rapporteur selection, committee routing, trilogue status.
  • Cover the coalition angle: who voted with whom, what was the margin, what defections were notable.
  • ≥3 adopted-text IDs (TA-10-YYYY-NNNN) cited inline.
  • ≥2 roll-call vote IDs cited inline.

Sub-section 1 — [REQUIRED: named cluster]

[REQUIRED: ≥300 words named-text-by-named-text narrative]

Sub-section 2 — [REQUIRED: named cluster]

[REQUIRED: ≥300 words]

(add sub-sections per cluster)

3️⃣ Coalition Dynamics — The Grand Centre's Q/Period Performance

Section length: ≥500 words.

Track the Grand Centre (EPP + S&D + Renew) or the dominant coalition of the period. For every claim about cohesion, cite the RCV evidence or note the roll-call data delay.

Requirements:

  • Per-group cohesion table with evidence.
  • ≥2 named MEPs whose defections were politically consequential.
  • Cross-coalition pattern (where EPP cooperated with ECR / PfE, where Greens-EFA bridged).
  • Explicit confidence caveat where EP roll-call data is not yet published.

4️⃣ Policy Dimensions

Walk each major policy dimension of the period in its own sub-section. For every dimension: committee, rapporteur, adopted text(s), coalition behaviour, and political meaning.

4.1 [REQUIRED: Trade / Defence / Digital / Environment / etc.]

[REQUIRED: ≥300 words]

4.2 [REQUIRED]

[REQUIRED: ≥300 words]

4.3 [REQUIRED]

[REQUIRED: ≥300 words]

(≥4 sub-sections; most months will have 4–6)

5️⃣ Institutional Dynamics

Section length: ≥400 words.

The EP does not operate in a vacuum. Analyse the institutional triangle for the period:

Requirements:

  • EP ↔ Commission: which proposals did the EP accept, amend, reject?
  • EP ↔ Council: which trilogues stalled, advanced, concluded?
  • EP internal: which rules changes, procedural adjustments, committee restructurings?
  • ≥2 named Commission proposals cited.
  • ≥1 Council position cited.

6️⃣ Geopolitical Context

Section length: ≥400 words.

Ground the period's parliamentary politics in the geopolitical environment. IMF (primary source for macro / fiscal / monetary / trade indicators) plus optional World Bank (non-economic domains only), transatlantic context, enlargement dynamics, energy posture.

Requirements:

  • ≥2 external events that shaped EP behaviour in the period.
  • ≥1 macro indicator (inflation / GDP / trade balance) with source.
  • A closing paragraph linking external context back to a specific EP vote or resolution.

7️⃣ Forward Trajectory

Section length: ≥400 words.

What the next period brings, which procedures are entering critical phases, where coalition stress-points will emerge.

Requirements:

8️⃣ Confidence & Method Note

Section length: ≥150 words.

Close by explaining how the analysis was built: which EP MCP endpoints succeeded, which failed, how the data-source bridge was constructed, what would change the assessment. Link to the run's sibling ../intelligence/mcp-reliability-audit.md (methodology: per-artifact-methodologies.md §mcp-reliability-audit).

✅ Quality Gate (self-check before commit)

  • Total length ≥ target (4 000 / 6 000 / 10 000 words depending on article type)
  • ≥15 named procedures / adopted texts / RCVs cited inline
  • ≥3 Mermaid diagrams or structured tables with evidence anchors
  • ≥2 historical comparisons (prior term / prior year)
  • Named coalitions with explicit cohesion percentages
  • Method note and confidence statement present
  • No partisan conclusions — analytical neutrality preserved
  • Every paragraph earns its place — no filler, no generic observations

🛠️ Worked Pass-1 → Pass-2 example

Pass-1 (filler)

This week the EP discussed several files. There were votes. Some were close. The Grand Coalition mostly held. There is some risk going forward.

Pass-2 (Economist-quality)

The week of 2026-04-21–25 saw three Tier-1 plenary votes. The Critical Raw Materials Act 2024/0123(COD) passed at first reading 412/189/68 on 2026-04-23 with EPP+S&D+Renew alignment intact (cohesion 91%, 92%, 88% respectively); 47 EPP MEPs from DEU, FRA, NLD, ITA defected on the "strategic supplier" amendment, foreshadowing trilogue softening pressure. The AI-Act implementing regulation 2026/0142(COD) cleared IMCO with rapporteur margin 35-12-2; ITRE associated opinion adopted 24-15. The fiscal-rules reform package 2025/0089(COD) saw an unusual ECR+PfE alignment (joint amendments tabled) reflecting member-state Council positions; absent EPP discipline, the file's coalition arithmetic narrows from 408 to 372 — within margin but uncomfortably close. The week's pattern fits the broader 2026 trend of single-committee consensus + plenary contestation, with Grand Coalition cohesion higher than 2025 baseline (88% mean vs 85%) but with rising cross-coalition issue clusters (rule-of-law, fiscal rules, energy security).

What changed: every claim sourced (RCV margin, cohesion %), procedure codes attached, named MEPs/groups/committees, historical comparison (vs 2025 baseline), forward implication (trilogue softening), and analytic neutrality preserved.

🚫 Anti-patterns — deep-analysis failures

Anti-patternWhy it failsCorrect approach
"Several files were discussed"Filler; uncountableName each procedure with code + RCV
Cohesion stated without sourceUnverifiableCite analyze_coalition_dynamics output
One-week perspective onlyNo baselineCompare vs 30/90/365-day baseline
Partisan framing ("EPP cynically...")Loses analytic credibilityNeutral language; let evidence speak
Single perspectiveMisses competing interpretationsDevil's-advocate paragraph required
"Will likely pass" without marginCoalition arithmetic shown"passes 412/189/68; 360 threshold met"
Aggregating across committees blindlyCommittee dynamics differPer-committee paragraphs
Implicit time horizonForecast unverifiableAlways anchor to plenary / trilogue date
Procedure-code typosBreaks reproducibilityFormat YYYY/NNNN(TYPE) strictly
Method note absentReader cannot verify rigourFinal paragraph: which MCP tools, what failed

🎯 EP MCP tool input map

SectionPrimary tools
Procedure-by-procedure narrativetrack_legislation, get_procedures, get_procedure_events
Coalition arithmeticanalyze_coalition_dynamics, compare_political_groups, get_voting_records
Committee scrutinyanalyze_committee_activity, get_committee_documents
Historical baselineget_all_generated_stats, prior-run artifacts
MEP-level signalsget_meps, get_speeches, get_parliamentary_questions
Pipeline statemonitor_legislative_pipeline

🔗 Controlling methodology cross-references

The following three color-coded Mermaid diagrams are recommended for deep-analysis.md artifacts to convey structural arguments visually. They are a best-practice baseline — extend, do not replace — and every diagram MUST inherit the canonical universal init block from political-style-guide.md §Standard universal init block.

Diagram 1 — Argument arc (executive → forward)

%%{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
    EXEC["📰 Executive Summary<br/>BLUF + WEP band"] --> THESIS["🧱 Structural Thesis<br/>{N} policy clusters"]
    THESIS --> CRYST["⚡ Crystallisation Moment<br/>defining session"]
    CRYST --> COAL["🤝 Coalition Dynamics<br/>{cohesion %}"]
    COAL --> POL["📜 Policy Dimensions<br/>≥4 sub-sections"]
    POL --> INST["🏛️ Institutional Dynamics<br/>EP × Council × COM"]
    INST --> GEO["🌍 Geopolitical Context"]
    GEO --> FWD["🧭 Forward Trajectory<br/>scenarios + WEP"]
    FWD --> CONF["✅ Confidence & Method"]

    style EXEC fill:#1565C0,color:#ffffff
    style THESIS fill:#2E7D32,color:#ffffff
    style CRYST fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style COAL fill:#7B1FA2,color:#ffffff
    style POL fill:#0288D1,color:#ffffff
    style INST fill:#388E3C,color:#ffffff
    style GEO fill:#FF9800,color:#000000
    style FWD fill:#D32F2F,color:#ffffff
    style CONF fill:#9E9E9E,color:#ffffff

Diagram 2 — Political timeline of the period

%%{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"}}}}%%
timeline
    title 🗓️ Political arc of the period
    {Window start} : Opening signal — {named procedure}
    {Mid-window} : Crystallisation session — {RCV title}
    {Late window} : Coalition stress test — {motion}
    {Run date} : Filing window — analysis snapshot
    T+30d : Forward trigger — {scheduled file}

Diagram 3 — Coalition cohesion vs opposition pressure

%%{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"}}}}%%
xychart-beta
    title "🤝 Coalition cohesion vs opposition pressure (rolling)"
    x-axis [W-4, W-3, W-2, W-1, W0]
    y-axis "% cohesion / pressure" 0 --> 100
    bar [{cohesion W-4}, {cohesion W-3}, {cohesion W-2}, {cohesion W-1}, {cohesion W0}]
    line [{pressure W-4}, {pressure W-3}, {pressure W-2}, {pressure W-1}, {pressure W0}]

AI Agent: Replace {…} placeholders with actual values from intelligence/coalition-dynamics.md, intelligence/voting-patterns.md, and existing/session-baseline.md. Diagrams 1–3 are the minimum; add domain- specific diagrams in the relevant body section if a single visual is more persuasive than prose.

✅ Stage-C completeness signals

  • Line floor: per-article-type from reference-quality-thresholds.json
  • ≥ 15 named procedures / RCVs / adopted texts inline
  • ≥ 3 Mermaid diagrams or structured tables
  • ≥ 2 historical comparisons
  • Method note + confidence statement present

Document Control: /analysis/daily/{date}/{type}-run{N}/existing/deep-analysis.md · Template v1.2 · Depth floor: per article-type minimum defined in reference-quality-thresholds.json (authoritative — e.g. motions 400, month-in-review 300, week-in-review 200).