⚓ Admiralty Grading Rubric — Riksdagsmonitor
🎯 Worked-Example Sheet for Source Reliability (A–F) and Information Credibility (1–6)
🏛️ ICD 206 · NATO STANAG 2511 · Heuer & Pherson SAT (3rd ed.) · ≥80 % Inter-Analyst Agreement
📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.0 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-05-14 (UTC)
🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-08-14
🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 559534-7807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public
Purpose: Provide a worked-example sheet so that two independent Riksdagsmonitor analysts reach the same Admiralty grade ≥ 80 % of the time. Eliminates the B-vs-C and 2-vs-3 subjectivity noted in the 2026-05-14 methodology-reflection cohort. Cite this rubric whenever applying Admiralty grades in any analysis artifact. Wire: 05-analysis-gate.md Check 7 for methodology-reflection ICD 203 audit.
Authority: ICD 206 (Source Reliability and Credibility Standards), NATO STANAG 2511 (Intelligence Grading), Heuer & Pherson Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis (3rd ed.) ch. 6.
Every source citation in a Riksdagsmonitor analysis artifact must carry two components:
- Reliability grade (letter A–F) — assesses the source, not the information.
- Credibility grade (number 1–6) — assesses the information item, not the source.
Combined notation: [B2], [A1], [C3], etc.
| Grade | Label | Definition | Swedish political-intelligence examples |
|---|
| A | Completely reliable | Source has a long, documented track record; all prior information later confirmed; no known bias or agenda | Official Riksdag chamber records (riksdagen.se); Regeringskansliet official publications; SCB open statistics; IMF WEO official dataset |
| B | Usually reliable | Source has been reliable in most cases; minor errors or delays; no systematic bias identified | Swedish news agencies (TT, Reuters Sweden); peer-reviewed Swedish political science journals; official Lagrådet yttrande archive |
| C | Fairly reliable | Source has provided reliable information often enough to be worth using, but has made significant errors or shown occasional bias | Swedish broadsheets (DN, SvD, GP) with byline; identified academic researchers; NGO policy reports with named methodology |
| D | Not usually reliable | Source has provided unreliable or inaccurate information more often than not, but not entirely discounted | Partisan think-tanks without transparent methodology; unnamed "political sources" in tabloid press; unverified social media accounts with history of inaccuracy |
| E | Unreliable | Source has consistently provided false, misleading, or unverifiable information | Anonymous internet commentary; known disinformation outlets; unverified telegram channels |
| F | Reliability cannot be judged | Newly encountered source; no track record; unable to assess independence or bias | First-time whistleblower contact; unknown NGO; unidentified document |
| Grade | Label | Definition | Swedish political-intelligence examples |
|---|
| 1 | Confirmed by other sources | Information independently corroborated by ≥2 unrelated sources | Vote outcome confirmed in both search_voteringar (Riksdag API) AND separate TT wire report |
| 2 | Probably true | Source is known reliable AND content consistent with established patterns; no contradictory evidence | Government budget framework figure matches Finansdepartementet press release + IMF WEO prior-year |
| 3 | Possibly true | Plausible content from a fairly reliable source; some corroboration but not definitive | Single broadsheet report of coalition-talks; no second source yet |
| 4 | Doubtful | Information conflicts with known facts or established patterns, but not impossible | Report claims SD is considering formal coalition entry — conflicts with SD's stated position but not ruled out |
| 5 | Improbable | Information is highly inconsistent with established facts or the source's known record | Claim that Statsminister privately supports EU membership suspension — no structural support |
| 6 | Cannot be judged | Insufficient context to assess credibility; neither confirming nor denying evidence available | Unverified leak about internal ministry briefing on sensitive treaty — content plausible but unconfirmable |
Is the source riksdagen.se (API or web) for votes, dok_ids, or transcripts?
YES → Reliability = A (completely reliable official record)
Credibility = 1 (confirmed by primary record)
Grade: [A1]
NO → Continue to Tree 2
Is the source regeringen.se, Finansdepartementet, SCB, IMF WEO, or Lagrådet official site?
YES → Reliability = A
Is the information also cited in at least one independent secondary source?
YES → Credibility = 1; Grade: [A1]
NO → Credibility = 2; Grade: [A2]
NO → Continue to Tree 3
Is the source TT (Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå) or Reuters Sweden with byline?
YES → Reliability = B
Is the information corroborated by ≥1 independent source?
YES → Credibility = 1 or 2; Grade: [B1] or [B2]
NO → Credibility = 3; Grade: [B3]
Is the source DN, SvD, GP, Aftonbladet, Expressen, SVT, or SR with byline?
YES → Reliability = B (established editorial standards)
Is the information corroborated?
YES → Credibility = 2; Grade: [B2]
NO → Credibility = 3; Grade: [B3]
NO → Continue to Tree 4
Is the source a peer-reviewed academic publication or identified researcher?
YES → Reliability = B
Is the content methodologically sound and independently cited?
YES → Credibility = 2; Grade: [B2]
NO → Credibility = 3; Grade: [B3]
Is the source a named NGO with transparent methodology?
YES → Reliability = C
Is the claim corroborated by independent source?
YES → Credibility = 2; Grade: [C2]
NO → Credibility = 3; Grade: [C3]
Is the source a partisan think-tank or advocacy organisation?
YES → Reliability = D
Use only if no better source; always label credibility ≥ 4; Grade: [D4] minimum
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | search_voteringar API — SD vote on FiU48 2026-04-24 |
| Grade | [A1] |
| Reliability rationale | Official Riksdag chamber record; no transcription or interpretation involved |
| Credibility rationale | Primary vote record confirmed; no ambiguity possible in digital vote ledger |
| Wrong grade | [B2] — ❌ This would imply "usually reliable" for a primary digital record that is either correct or doesn't exist |
| Disambiguation note | If the analyst is interpreting the vote pattern (e.g. "SD defection"), that interpretation receives its own grade ([B3] at best) separate from the vote fact ([A1]) |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | IMF WEO April 2026 vintage — Sweden GDP growth forecast |
| Grade | [A2] |
| Reliability rationale | IMF official flagship publication; no history of Swedish data errors; no known bias for Sweden |
| Credibility rationale | Forecast figure is the IMF's own model output — not confirmed by an independent second source (IMF is the only source for its own projections) |
| Wrong grade | [A1] — ❌ Credibility 1 requires independent corroboration; IMF forecast cannot be "confirmed" by another source that also uses IMF data |
| Disambiguation note | When SCB quarterly national accounts confirm IMF forecast within ±0.3 pp, upgrade to [A1] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Dagens Nyheter (Ida Söderberg, 2026-05-12) — report on coalition talks |
| Grade | [B3] |
| Reliability rationale | Established newspaper with editorial standards; named journalist with track record |
| Credibility rationale | Single-source report; coalition talks claimed but not confirmed by Riksdag records or second outlet |
| Wrong grade | [C3] — ❌ DN has long-established editorial standards that place it in reliability tier B, not C |
| Disambiguation note | If TT also runs the story without attribution to DN, upgrade to [B2] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Vårdförbundet annual report on nurse staffing shortfall (2025) |
| Grade | [C2] |
| Reliability rationale | Named NGO with transparent survey methodology; professional body with institutional interest in the topic (potential bias toward higher shortage estimates) |
| Credibility rationale | Data confirmed by Socialstyrelsen parallel report showing same regional trend |
| Wrong grade | [B2] — ❌ Vårdförbundet has a sector interest that creates potential bias; reliability tier C is appropriate |
| Disambiguation note | If Statskontoret or SCB independently publishes matching figure, upgrade to [B2] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Aftonbladet citing "en källa nära statsministern" (unnamed, 2026-03-18) |
| Grade | [D5] |
| Reliability rationale | Tabloid reliability tier B for editorial standards, but unnamed source drops actual reliability to D (source cannot be evaluated) |
| Credibility rationale | Claim is that a specific ministerial resignation was imminent — contradicts public statements, inconsistent with pattern; improbable |
| Wrong grade | [B4] — ❌ The reliability grade is for the source (unnamed tipster), not the publication; unnamed sources default to D |
| Disambiguation note | If subsequent events confirm the tip, upgrade credibility to 1 but note the original reliability grade was D |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Lagrådet yttrande Dnr 2026-031 (official PDF from lagradet.se) |
| Grade | [A1] |
| Reliability rationale | Official primary-source document from an independent constitutional body; zero history of falsification |
| Credibility rationale | Document text is the authoritative record; inherently confirmed |
| Disambiguation note | Analyst's interpretation of whether the yttrande is "critical" (tillstyrker vs. kritiska anmärkningar) is a separate analytical judgment at [A3] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Jimmie Åkesson (SD party leader) post on X/Twitter, 2026-04-15 |
| Grade | [B3] |
| Reliability rationale | Verified account of named political actor; no history of fake accounts; but posts are not fact-checked and may be political messaging |
| Credibility rationale | Statement of political position is plausible and consistent with party line; not independently corroborated |
| Wrong grade | [A2] — ❌ Social media posts do not carry official publication standards; reliability tier B is ceiling for verified social media |
| Disambiguation note | If the post is later reported verbatim by TT, the TT article carries [B2] and the original post remains [B3] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | SCB BO0501 — monthly house-price index, March 2026 |
| Grade | [A1] |
| Reliability rationale | Official national statistics; no history of revision errors; mandated public-interest publication |
| Credibility rationale | Released simultaneously by SCB and confirmed by Riksbank housing-price tracker |
| Disambiguation note | For model projections derived from SCB data (e.g. forecast for Q3 2026), grade the model separately at [B2] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Bergman, T. et al. (2025) "Nordic coalition survival determinants", Scandinavian Political Studies |
| Grade | [B2] |
| Reliability rationale | Peer-reviewed journal; named researchers; no identified competing interest |
| Credibility rationale | Findings on Nordic coalition survival rates are consistent with independent Comparative Constitutions Project data |
| Wrong grade | [A2] — ❌ Academic articles are not official government records; reliability tier B is appropriate for peer-reviewed academic sources |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | NATO Secretary-General press statement, 2026-03-22, on Swedish defence commitment |
| Grade | [A2] |
| Reliability rationale | Official international organisation; primary source; no history of fabrication |
| Credibility rationale | Statement is the official NATO position — cannot be "confirmed" by another source independently |
| Disambiguation note | Analyst interpretation of whether the statement implies a specific obligation for Sweden is a separate claim at [B3] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | SD party congress motion (publicly available PDF, 2025 congress) |
| Grade | [B2] |
| Reliability rationale | Official party document; published by the party; verified by cross-check with SVT congress coverage |
| Credibility rationale | Content confirmed by SVT reporting and TT summary |
| Wrong grade | [C3] — ❌ An official published party congress document is a B-grade source; C is for less institutional sources |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | European Commission DG Competition press release on state-aid investigation, 2026-05 |
| Grade | [A1] |
| Reliability rationale | Official EU institution publication; primary source; legally binding |
| Credibility rationale | Commission press release is authoritative confirmation of its own action |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Riksbank monetary policy meeting minutes, April 2026 |
| Grade | [A2] |
| Reliability rationale | Official central bank publication; highest reliability tier |
| Credibility rationale | Minutes represent internal deliberation — content is Riksbank's own record, not externally corroborated |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | SNS (Studieförbundet Näringsliv och Samhälle) housing report (2025) |
| Grade | [C2] |
| Reliability rationale | Named think-tank; published methodology; slight pro-market orientation creates potential bias → tier C |
| Credibility rationale | Key finding corroborated by Boverket official housing supply data |
| Wrong grade | [B2] — ❌ SNS's known ideological orientation places it in reliability tier C despite transparent methodology |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Purported Finansdepartementet internal memo (leaked to journalist, not confirmed by ministry) |
| Grade | [F4] |
| Reliability rationale | Source (person who leaked) is unknown; document authenticity unverified → reliability F |
| Credibility rationale | Content is internally consistent with known fiscal trajectory but contradicts one official statement → doubtful |
| Wrong grade | [C4] — ❌ An unverified document from an unknown leaker is an F-grade source regardless of content plausibility |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | riksdagen.se interpellation transcript — verbatim ministerial answer 2026-05-03 |
| Grade | [A1] |
| Reliability rationale | Official Riksdag verbatim chamber record |
| Credibility rationale | Direct transcription; primary source; confirmed |
| Disambiguation note | Analyst's quality-tier rating of the answer (tier 1–5 rubric) is a secondary analytical judgment at [A3] minimum |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | MSB (Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap) annual threat assessment (2025) |
| Grade | [A2] |
| Reliability rationale | Official government agency; mandated threat assessment function; established track record |
| Credibility rationale | Findings consistent with SÄPO annual report trend but not independently confirmed by non-government source |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Riksdag motion 2025/26:S482 (V party motion on housing) — verbatim text |
| Grade | [A1] |
| Reliability rationale | Official registered Riksdag document; digital ledger record |
| Credibility rationale | Verbatim motion text; confirmed by Riksdag publication |
| Disambiguation note | Analysis of the motion's likely outcome is a secondary claim at [B3] until vote records confirm |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | SVT opinionsmätning (Demoskop, March 2026) — published party support estimates |
| Grade | [B2] |
| Reliability rationale | SVT public broadcaster; Demoskop established polling firm; transparent methodology; no history of systematic fabrication |
| Credibility rationale | Consistent with Sifo March 2026 (within margin of error) |
| Wrong grade | [C3] — ❌ Demoskop has a long track record and SVT provides independent editorial oversight; tier B is appropriate |
| Disambiguation note | Single poll without cross-poll corroboration → [B3]; confirmed by second major poll → [B2] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | FiU betänkande 2025/26:FiU28 (official Riksdag publication) |
| Grade | [A1] |
| Reliability rationale | Official Riksdag committee report; legislative authority record |
| Credibility rationale | Report is the committee's authoritative output; confirmed by Riksdag publication |
| Disambiguation note | Analyst predictions about how the report will vote in kammaren are secondary claims at [B3] |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | Statskontoret evaluation report on polisreformen (2025) — statskontoret.se |
| Grade | [A2] |
| Reliability rationale | Official government expert body; independent mandate; primary data collection |
| Credibility rationale | Findings consistent with Riksrevisionen audit, but not all metrics independently confirmed |
| Disambiguation note | When both Statskontoret and Riksrevisionen independently reach the same finding, credibility upgrades to 1 |
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Source | European Court of Human Rights judgment (Case Sweden, 2025) — hudoc.echr.coe.int |
| Grade | [A1] |
| Reliability rationale | Official international court judgment; unimpeachable primary source |
| Credibility rationale | Court judgment is confirmed primary record |
| Error pattern | Correct approach |
|---|
| Applying the publication's grade to an unnamed source within it | Grade the actual source (named person, named document); unnamed sources → D |
| Grading a secondary interpretation at the same level as the primary record | Primary record (e.g. vote) = [A1]; analyst's interpretation of that record = [A3] at best |
| Upgrading a C source to B because its conclusions seem reasonable | Reasonableness is a credibility factor (1–6), not a reliability factor (A–F); keep reliability at C |
| Treating "two articles from the same newsroom" as two independent sources | Same editorial chain = single source; credibility 1 requires sources from different editorial/institutional chains |
| Grading an AI model output | AI models are not intelligence sources; do not apply Admiralty grades to AI-generated content; only apply to primary sources cited by the AI |
To maintain ≥80 % agreement between two analysts grading the same source:
- Grade independently before discussing.
- Check reliability first (letter grade): does the source type match the decision trees?
- Check credibility second (number grade): is there independent corroboration, and how consistent is the content?
- Disagreement resolution: if grades differ by ≥1 step (e.g. B vs. D, or 2 vs. 4), discuss using the worked-example sheet. The lower (more cautious) grade is adopted until resolution.
- Record agreement: log the final grade and any disagreement resolution note in
methodology-reflection.md §Source grading audit.
Target: ≥80 % exact-grade agreement; ≤5 % two-step disagreements.
Document Control
- Path:
analysis/methodologies/admiralty-rubric.md
- Classification: Public
- Next Review: 2026-08-14