Quantitative SWOT

May 3, 2026 · View on GitHub

Analytical supplementary (optional). Numerical extension of swot-analysis.md. Produce when decision-makers need a scored ranking (e.g., coalition negotiation prep, party strategy memo, election forecasting). Applies DIW weighting × confidence × leverage to every SWOT item. Pairs with significance-scoring.md (same weight vector) and executive-brief.md (top-3 surfacing).

Methodology → analysis/methodologies/analytical-supplementary-methodology.md § Quantitative SWOT. Not counted in the 23 core artifacts. Non-blocking in 05-analysis-gate.md.

🔄 Tradecraft Context

Artifact class — Analytical supplementary (optional, never blocking)
Use when — Decision-makers need a numerically ranked SWOT (coalition negotiation prep, party strategy memo, election forecasting, policy-impact comparison); particularly valuable when ≥ 3 SWOT items compete for finite political capital or budget allocation
Pairs with — swot-analysis.md (qualitative source; always produce first), significance-scoring.md (shared DIW weight vector — must use same weights), executive-brief.md (top-3 scored items surface in §3 Decisions)
Methodology — analytical-supplementary-methodology.md § Quantitative SWOT
Workflow status — Not counted in the 23 core artifacts; non-blocking in 05-analysis-gate.md
Minimum depth floor — 110 lines (Standard), 160 lines (Deep), 240 lines (Comprehensive / Tier-C)
Important constraint — This file is read-alongside swot-analysis.md, never a replacement. Narrative SWOT remains the Pass-2-enforced artifact.

📋 Scope & scoring rubric

Entity — [party / coalition / bill / policy domain / named institution — be specific; same entity as the companion swot-analysis.md]
Perspective — [party-internal / opposition / national-interest / voter-segment / media-framing — declare whose analytical lens is applied]
Assessment horizon — [short ≤ 6 m / medium 6–24 m / long 2–10 y] — affects time-decay T values
Anchor date — {{ARTICLE_DATE}} — ensures vintage discipline; economic data must cite IMF WEO vintage within 6 months of this date

Weight vector (MUST mirror `significance-scoring.md` — do not modify without updating both files)

Dimension	Weight	Meaning
`w_D` Decision relevance	0.35	How directly does this item affect the current political decision or agenda?
`w_I` Information novelty	0.25	Is this item new information vs. already priced into the discourse?
`w_W` Wave / momentum	0.20	Is this item's relevance growing, stable, or declining?
`w_S` Stakeholder reach	0.20	How many stakeholders (voters, parties, institutions) are directly affected?

Score scales (all scores are floating-point)

Parameter	Range	Meaning
Impact `I`	`[-5.0, +5.0]`	Signed: +5 = strongest positive, -5 = strongest negative; 0 = neutral/irrelevant
Confidence `C`	`[0.20, 0.95]`	WEP-mapped: Remote=0.20, Very unlikely=0.35, Unlikely=0.45, Even chance=0.50, Likely=0.70, Very likely=0.85, Almost certain=0.95
Leverage `L`	`[0.10, 1.00]`	How much can the entity directly influence this item? 1.0 = full control, 0.1 = no influence
Time-decay `T`	`[0.30, 1.00]`	How relevant is this item within the assessment horizon? 1.0 = immediate, 0.3 = long-horizon discount
dRel	`[0.0, 1.0]`	Score for Decision relevance dimension
iNov	`[0.0, 1.0]`	Score for Information novelty dimension
wMom	`[0.0, 1.0]`	Score for Wave / momentum dimension
sReach	`[0.0, 1.0]`	Score for Stakeholder reach dimension

Composite score formula

score_item = I × C × L × T × (w_D·dRel + w_I·iNov + w_W·wMom + w_S·sReach)

Strengths & Opportunities: I > 0 → positive score
Weaknesses & Threats: I < 0 → negative score (the formula yields negative result automatically)

Worked example (S1 row):

score_S1 = (+4.0) × 0.85 × 0.70 × 0.90 × (0.35×0.90 + 0.25×0.50 + 0.20×0.60 + 0.20×0.80)
         = (+4.0) × 0.85 × 0.70 × 0.90 × (0.315 + 0.125 + 0.120 + 0.160)
         = (+4.0) × 0.85 × 0.70 × 0.90 × 0.720
         = 1.555

📐 Template Contract — every fill of this template MUST satisfy this row.

Slot Value
Owning methodology per-artifact-methodologies.md
Owning gate check Supplementary (year-ahead/cycle blocking) — see 05-analysis-gate.md
Required inputs swot-analysis.md, DIW weight vector
Horizon band mixed (year/cycle) (per scripts/horizon-context.ts)
Output family Analytical Supplementary
Aggregation order 23 of 30 in canonical order (see scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts)
Reader Intelligence Guide row generated from quantitative-swot.md (see scripts/render-lib/aggregator/reader-guide.ts)
Canonical evidence anchor | claim | evidence (dok_id / vote / MP intressent_id / primary-source URL) | retrieved_at | confidence | — every analytical claim row uses this schema.

Cross-reference: README.md §Template ↔ Methodology ↔ Gate-Check Matrix.

Slot	Value
Owning methodology	`per-artifact-methodologies.md`
Owning gate check	Supplementary (year-ahead/cycle blocking) — see `05-analysis-gate.md`
Required inputs	`swot-analysis.md`, DIW weight vector
Horizon band	mixed (year/cycle) (per `scripts/horizon-context.ts`)
Output family	Analytical Supplementary
Aggregation order	23 of 30 in canonical order (see `scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts`)
Reader Intelligence Guide	row generated from `quantitative-swot.md` (see `scripts/render-lib/aggregator/reader-guide.ts`)
Canonical evidence anchor	`\| claim \| evidence (dok_id / vote / MP intressent_id / primary-source URL) \| retrieved_at \| confidence \|` — every analytical claim row uses this schema.

💪 Strengths (scored)

Every item must cite a dok_id, primary URL host, or named source. Minimum 3 items; target 4–5 for comprehensive runs.

ID	Item	Evidence (dok_id / URL / source + date)	I	C	L	T	dRel	iNov	wMom	sReach	Score	WEP†
S1	[describe strength: e.g. Riksdag majority provides stable legislative base for trigger policy]	[riksdagen.se voteringar + session-baseline.md]	+4	0.85	0.70	0.90	0.90	0.50	0.60	0.80	1.56	Very likely
S2	[e.g. IMF WEO fiscal surplus gives room for programme investment]	[WEO-2026-04 GGXCNL_NGDP]	+3	0.80	0.60	0.80	0.85	0.40	0.50	0.60	0.87	Very likely
S3	[e.g. NATO membership enhances security credibility, reducing defence-budget political risk]	[NATO accession 2024; FöU betänkande dok_id]	+3	0.90	0.40	0.90	0.70	0.30	0.40	0.70	0.78	Almost certain
S4	[additional strength if applicable]

Strength total (Σ S) — +[sum] (populate after scoring all rows)

Top strength — S1 [item name] at score +1.56; drives executive-brief.md §3 Decision recommendation 1.

⚠️ Weaknesses (scored)

ID	Item	Evidence	I (negative)	C	L	T	dRel	iNov	wMom	sReach	Score	WEP†
W1	[e.g. Tidö 1-seat majority creates structural vulnerability to defection on contested bills]	[search_voteringar party discipline; session-baseline.md]	-3	0.85	0.50	0.80	0.90	0.40	0.70	0.70	-0.86	Very likely
W2	[e.g. Declining trust in government (SOM 2025) reduces mandate for ambitious reform]	[SOM Institute trust survey 2025]	-3	0.75	0.30	0.70	0.80	0.50	0.60	0.80	-0.72	Likely
W3	[e.g. AI policy implementation gap: no enacted Swedish AI supervisory authority]	[EU AI Act transposition timeline; prop. status]	-2	0.80	0.60	0.60	0.70	0.60	0.70	0.50	-0.46	Very likely
W4	[additional weakness if applicable]

Weakness total (Σ W) — -[sum] (populate after scoring)

Top weakness — W1 [item name] at score -0.86; enters risk-assessment.md §Political as elevated risk.

ID	Item	Evidence	I	C	L	T	dRel	iNov	wMom	sReach	Score	WEP†
O1	[e.g. EU Digital Single Market investment window for Swedish tech policy leadership]	[COM(2025) doc / EUR-Lex; regeringen.se digitaliseringsminister]	+4	0.70	0.50	0.70	0.80	0.70	0.60	0.60	1.15	Likely
O2	[e.g. Nordic green-hydrogen corridor creates alignment with Energimyndigheten goals]	[NordPool SvK + EU Hydrogen Bank bulletin]	+3	0.65	0.40	0.80	0.70	0.70	0.70	0.50	0.72	Likely
O3	[e.g. Pre-election window: policy implementation before val-dag builds voter trust]	[election calendar; SVT opinion tracker]	+3	0.75	0.70	0.70	0.85	0.60	0.80	0.70	0.96	Likely
O4	[additional opportunity if applicable]

🌩 Threats (scored)

ID	Item	Evidence	I (negative)	C	L	T	dRel	iNov	wMom	sReach	Score	WEP†
T1	[e.g. Election-period disinformation campaign degrades coalition credibility]	[MSB disinfo report 2025; wildcards W5 deepfake]	-4	0.65	0.20	0.90	0.85	0.70	0.80	0.80	-1.24	Likely
T2	[e.g. IMF forecasts NGDP_RPCH declining → fiscal constraint tightens policy options]	[WEO-2026-04 SWE NGDP_RPCH]	-3	0.75	0.15	0.80	0.90	0.50	0.60	0.70	-0.70	Likely
T3	[e.g. EU EDP risk from rising defence + social spend combination]	[IMF FM GGXWDG_NGDP; EC fiscal monitoring]	-3	0.50	0.30	0.70	0.80	0.70	0.50	0.60	-0.49	Even chance
T4	[additional threat if applicable]

Threat total (Σ T) — -[sum]

Top threat — T1 [item name] at score -1.24; crosses into wildcards-blackswans.md W5 and risk-assessment.md §Electoral.

🎯 Composite SWOT position

Metric	Formula	Value	Interpretation
Net position	`(Σ S + Σ O) + (Σ W + Σ T)`	`[computed]`	`> 0` favourable, `< 0` unfavourable
Internal (SW) balance	`Σ S / (Σ S +	Σ W	)`
External (OT) balance	`Σ O / (Σ O +	Σ T	)`
High-confidence share	items with `C ≥ 0.80` / total items	`[computed]`	`< 0.40` → confidence-dominated by uncertainty
Top positive item	highest positive score	S1 or O1	drives SO quadrant action
Top negative item	most negative score	W1 or T1	drives WT hedge action

Overall position narrative — [2–3 sentences: is the entity in a net-favourable or net-unfavourable position? Which quadrant (SO leverage, WO shore-up, ST defensive, WT retreat/hedge) demands priority action? Cite the specific score gap that drives the recommendation.]

📊 TOWS matrix (actionable 2 × 2)

Each cell requires ≥ 1 specific action citing the item IDs above. Generic actions ("strengthen capabilities") are rejected at Pass-2 audit.

	Opportunities (O1–O4)	Threats (T1–T4)
Strengths (S1–S4)	SO — Leverage actions (use strengths to capture opportunities): [e.g. Use S1 (Riksdag majority) × O3 (pre-election window) to pass key reform bill before September val. Sponsor cross-committee hearing by FiU × MjU. Timeline: Q2 2026.]	ST — Defensive actions (use strengths to deflect threats): [e.g. Use S1 (majority) × S3 (NATO credibility) to pre-empt T1 (disinformation) by publishing bi-weekly factual coalition progress brief. MSB coordination. Timeline: monthly from April 2026.]
Weaknesses (W1–W4)	WO — Shore-up actions (address weaknesses to capture opportunities): [e.g. Shore up W2 (trust deficit) via O3 (pre-election window): commission independent Finanspolitiska rådet evaluation and publicise results. Timeline: June 2026.]	WT — Retreat / hedge actions (minimise weaknesses to avoid threats): [e.g. W1 (thin majority) × T2 (fiscal constraint): pre-negotiate budget contingency with C as backstop; avoid any policy that requires SD + C simultaneously. Ongoing.]

📈 Sensitivity analysis

Test robustness of the top-3 items against plausible parameter changes. If any flip reverses the net-position sign, label the scenario a "fragile consensus" — flag in risk-assessment.md.

Scenario	Parameters changed	Affected items	New net position	Δ vs baseline	Robustness
Worst-case confidence for top threat T1	`C(T1)` raised to 0.90 (from 0.65)	T1 score → -1.71	`[recalculate]`	`[Δ]`	Fragile if net < -0.5
Full time-horizon (T=1.0) on all Strengths	`T(S1)=T(S2)=T(S3)=1.0`	S1–S3 scores increase ~11 %	`[recalculate]`	`[Δ]`	Robust if net remains positive
Decision-dominant weights (`w_D=0.50, w_I=0.15, w_W=0.20, w_S=0.15`)	weight vector shift	all items recalculated	`[recalculate]`	`[Δ]`	Check if ranking order flips
Entity loses control of W1 (leverage drops to 0.1)	`L(W1)=0.10`	W1 score → -0.09	`[recalculate]`	improves on paper but risk is unmanaged	Flag in risk-assessment
Opposition coalition wins election (perspective change)	Perspective shift → opposition entity	full recalculation required	N/A	structural change	Produce separate run

Sensitivity conclusion — [1–2 sentences identifying whether the net position is robust or fragile; cite the single parameter that would most change the recommendation.]

🗳️ Election 2026 implications

Mandatory when {{ARTICLE_TYPE}} is monthly-review, election-2026-analysis, or week-ahead within 180 days of val-dag.

SWOT quadrant	Electoral mechanism	Key item(s)	WEP	Timeline
Strengths → electoral asset	[e.g. S1 legislative majority → campaign on policy delivery record]	S1, S3	Very likely (85 %)	All 2026
Weaknesses → electoral liability	[e.g. W2 trust deficit → opposition frames coalition as out-of-touch]	W2	Likely (70 %)	Q2–Q3 2026
Opportunities → electoral gain	[e.g. O3 pre-election policy window → implement visible reform before September]	O3	Likely (75 %)	Q2 2026
Threats → electoral damage	[e.g. T1 disinformation → epistemic attack erodes undecided vote]	T1	Likely (65 %)	Q3 2026 (peak pre-val)

Electoral net score = (score S-electoral assets + score O-electoral gain) + (score W-liabilities + score T-damage) = [calculate]

📊 Mermaid ranked diagram

Replace the sample values below with actual computed scores before publishing. Positive bars = S/O; negative bars = W/T.

%%{init: {'theme':'dark'}}%%
xychart-beta
  title "Quantitative SWOT — composite score ({{ARTICLE_DATE}})"
  x-axis ["S1", "S2", "S3", "O1", "O2", "O3", "W1", "W2", "W3", "T1", "T2", "T3"]
  y-axis "Score" -2 --> 2
  bar [1.56, 0.87, 0.78, 1.15, 0.72, 0.96, -0.86, -0.72, -0.46, -1.24, -0.70, -0.49]

Bar colours: positive values (S/O) = cyan (#00d9ff); negative values (W/T) = magenta (#ff006e) — set via CSS theme.

🎯 PIR feedback

PIR	Top-3 items addressing PIR	Coverage gap in this scoring	Recommended action
PIR-1 Coalition stability	W1 (thin majority), T1 (disinformation), S1 (legislative strength)	Scoring captures political dimension; security dimension underweighted	Cross-reference STRIDE R and E rows
PIR-2 Economic trajectory	S2 (fiscal surplus), T2 (growth forecast), T3 (EDP risk)	IMF vintage within 6 months confirmed	No gap
PIR-3 Security / threats	T1, S3 (NATO)	Military capability not scored here	Use `risk-assessment.md §Security` for fuller picture

🔗 Cross-links

swot-analysis.md — narrative SWOT; always produce first; this file adds quantitative spine
significance-scoring.md — must share weight vector w_D=0.35, w_I=0.25, w_W=0.20, w_S=0.20; any deviation is a gate failure
executive-brief.md — surfaces top-3 scored items (highest S, highest O, most-negative T) in §3 Decisions
risk-assessment.md — Threat items with |score| ≥ 0.70 become risk-register entries
scenario-analysis.md — SO quadrant actions → optimistic scenario; WT quadrant → pessimistic scenario
wildcards-blackswans.md — T1 (disinformation) directly maps to W5; T3 (EDP) maps to W8
coalition-mathematics.md — W1 (thin majority) seat arithmetic sourced from here
analysis/imf/README.md — IMF economic-data contract for S2, T2, T3 economic items; use WEO:NGDP_RPCH, FM:GGXWDG_NGDP, WEO:GGXCNL_NGDP with vintage tag

† WEP = Words-of-Estimative-Probability confidence band (mapped to C parameter).

Template version: v2.0 · Last updated: 2026-04-25

✅ Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklist (v4.4 — required)

Purpose: AI-FIRST principle requires a Pass-2 read-back-and-improve. After producing this artifact in Pass 1, re-read it end-to-end and verify each item below. Document any remediation in methodology-reflection.md §"Pass-2 audit log". Any unchecked ❌ box at the end of Pass 2 forces a Pass-3 rewrite of the affected section.