political-swot-framework.md

May 3, 2026 · View on GitHub

💼 Political SWOT Analysis Framework

📊 Evidence-Based SWOT Methodology for Political Intelligence
🎯 MCP Sources · Confidence Levels · Cross-SWOT Interference · Scenario Generation · Power-Interest Mapping

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 2.5 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-25 (UTC)
🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-09-01
🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

🎯 AI-FIRST Methodology Card

🚦 Read this card before writing a single paragraph. It names the artifact this methodology owns, the gate check it satisfies, the evidence-density target it must hit, and the Pass-1 / Pass-2 discipline required by .github/copilot-instructions.md §5 (AI-FIRST Quality Principle).

Field	Value
Purpose	Evidence-based SWOT methodology with cross-SWOT interference, scenario generation, power-interest mapping, and TOWS — Step 4 of the AI-driven pipeline.
Inputs	Family A synthesis; Family E per-document analyses; classification + risk + threat outputs
Outputs	`swot-analysis.md`
Owning artifact(s)	`swot-analysis.md`
Owning gate check	Check 4 (evidence per quadrant) + Check 5 (Mermaid) + party-neutrality arithmetic in `reference-quality-thresholds.json#tradecraftQualitySignals.partyNeutralityArithmeticRequired`
Citation density target	≥ 2 evidence anchors per quadrant; cross-SWOT interference rows ≥ 1 anchor per pairing
Banned phrases	Enforced via `political-style-guide.md` §Machine-readable banned-phrase list
Threshold source	`reference-quality-thresholds.json` → `thresholds[articleType][artifact]` (fallback `defaults.coreArtifactFloor`)

✅ Pass-1 checklist (creation — minimal viable artifact)

≥ 2 entries per quadrant (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), each with confidence (VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW)
≥ 3 TOWS strategic options (SO, WO, ST or WT each)
Party-neutrality: equal treatment of all parties; passive support / tolerance is not active coalition
Produce every required sub-section listed in the owning template
Add ≥ 1 evidence anchor (dok_id, vote id, named MP, or primary-source URL) per analytical claim
Apply the correct WEP confidence band for the run's horizon (72h / week / month / quarter / year / cycle)
Include ≥ 1 themed Mermaid diagram with style … or themeVariables config (where structurally meaningful)
Cross-link the relevant template under analysis/templates/ and the gate check it satisfies

🔁 Pass-2 checklist (read-back & improve — AI-FIRST mandatory)

Add a cross-SWOT interference table where ≥ 2 quadrants amplify each other
Add ≥ 1 scenario per SWOT combination with WEP probability
Re-read the file end-to-end; flag every claim that lacks an evidence anchor and add one
Replace every banned phrase listed in political-style-guide.md §Machine-readable banned-phrase list with an evidence-anchored alternative
Tighten WEP language: never above likely without ≥ 3 cycle-aged sources for year/cycle horizons
Strengthen Mermaid (color-coded style … directives, themeVariables, ≥ 5 nodes where the structure admits it)
Add ≥ 1 second-order effect, cui-bono note, or counterfactual where the artifact admits one
Verify citation density meets the per-file target below and the gate's evidence-density rules

🟢 Exemplar (good — pattern-match this)

(SWOT entry) "Threat — Coalition fragility on FöU appropriation (HIGH): SD whip discipline 96.7 % on H902FöU14 vote (vote-id R-2026-04-22-12); evidence riksdagen.se ([A1]). Cross-SWOT: amplifies Weakness W-3 (L bench abstention rate 14 %)."

🔴 Anti-exemplar (failure mode — never ship this)

(failure mode) "Threats include coalition instability and policy disagreements." — no quadrant entries, no confidence, no dok_id, no cross-SWOT.

🔗 Cross-links

Template(s): analysis/templates/swot-analysis.md (and quadrant-bullet shape consumed by synthesis-summary.md)
Gate check: .github/prompts/05-analysis-gate.md
AI-FIRST canon: .github/copilot-instructions.md §5 · ai-driven-analysis-guide.md
Style canon: political-style-guide.md · osint-tradecraft-standards.md
Catalog row: artifact-catalog.md

🔄 Tradecraft Anchors

Element	Value	Reference
F3EAD Stage	EXPLOIT	SWOT extracts strategic intelligence value from public parliamentary/government documents and official statistics
PIRs Served	SWOT entries map to PIRs: Strengths/Opportunities for government → PIR-1, PIR-5; Threats to democratic process → PIR-7; Electoral vulnerabilities → PIR-6	See `political-style-guide.md` §PIR/EEI Catalog
Admiralty Floor	Every SWOT entry requires ≥[B2] evidence; entries at [C3] or lower must be flagged `⚠️ low confidence`	See `political-style-guide.md` §Admiralty Code
WEP Requirement	Scenario Generation uses WEP probabilities; TOWS strategic options use WEP for likelihood of success	See `political-style-guide.md` §WEP + ODNI
ICD 203 Gate	Standard 4 (alternative analysis via Cross-SWOT), 6 (logical argumentation), 9 (visual information)	See `political-style-guide.md` §ICD 203
SAT(s)	Brainstorming (entry generation), Key Assumptions Check (SWOT validation)	See `political-style-guide.md` §SATs

🎯 Purpose

This framework establishes the deep, evidence-based SWOT analysis methodology for Riksdagsmonitor. Unlike traditional opinion-based SWOT analyses, this methodology requires verifiable evidence for every entry — either a Riksdag document ID (dok_id), named primary source, or official statistical reference.

Beyond basic SWOT, this framework includes advanced analytical techniques:

Cross-SWOT Interference Analysis — how SWOT elements from different actors interact and amplify each other
Strategic Scenario Generation — using SWOT combinations to construct plausible political futures
Power-Interest Mapping — positioning stakeholders by influence and stake in outcomes
TOWS Matrix — converting SWOT findings into actionable strategic options

Quality standard: SWOT.md (965 lines of strategic analysis) and CIA platform SWOT.md.

📐 Evidence-Based vs. Opinion-Based SWOT

The fundamental distinction that makes political SWOT analysis analytically rigorous:

graph LR
    A[SWOT Entry] --> B{Has verifiable<br/>evidence source?}
    B -->|Yes: dok_id, statistics,<br/>named vote, official statement| C[✅ Evidence-Based<br/>PUBLISHABLE]
    B -->|No: analyst opinion,<br/>general impression| D[❌ Opinion-Based<br/>REJECTED]
    
    C --> E[Assign Confidence Level<br/>based on source quality]
    D --> F[Return for evidence gathering<br/>or discard]
    
    E --> G[HIGH: Official Riksdag document<br/>or SCB statistics]
    E --> H[MEDIUM: Verified media report<br/>+ corroborating source]
    E --> I[LOW: Single source,<br/>credible but unverified]

Evidence Hierarchy (by confidence level)

Confidence	Acceptable Sources	Tool / Data Source
HIGH	Riksdag official document (proposition, betänkande, protokoll)	`get_dokument`, `search_dokument`
HIGH	Verified voting record	`search_voteringar`
HIGH	SCB official statistics	SCB PxWeb API
HIGH	IMF economic data (WEO / FM / IFS / BOP / GFS_COFOG / DOTS / PCPS / MFS_IR / ER) — primary and only economic source	IMF Datamapper REST + SDMX 3.0 (`scripts/imf-fetch.ts`)
MEDIUM	Government press release	`search_regering`
MEDIUM	Named politician's anförande in Riksdag	`search_anforanden`
MEDIUM	Verified major newspaper with named sources	`search_dokument_fulltext`
LOW	Single unnamed source	— (flag for verification)
REJECTED	Analyst inference without evidence	—

📊 MCP Data Sources for Each Quadrant

✅ Strengths — Optimal MCP Sources

Strengths are typically demonstrated by achieved results and enacted legislation:

Strength Type	MCP Tool	Query Strategy
Legislative achievement	`search_dokument`	`doktyp=prop` + `status=antagen` (approved)
Coalition vote cohesion	`search_voteringar`	Filter by coalition parties + Ja votes
Policy implementation	`search_dokument`	Government `skr` (skrivelse) reports
Parliamentary majority	`fetch_report`	`report=ledamotsstatistik` for seat counts
International standing	`search_dokument`	`organ=UU` (Foreign Affairs Committee)

⚠️ Weaknesses — Optimal MCP Sources

Weaknesses are demonstrated by failed votes, dissenting opinions, and opposition criticism:

Weakness Type	MCP Tool	Query Strategy
Internal coalition dissent	`search_voteringar`	Coalition party voting against government
Policy failure	`search_dokument`	Withdrawn propositions, failed betänkanden
Opposition criticism strength	`get_interpellationer`	Volume and topics of interpellationer
Parliamentary minority	`search_voteringar`	Nej votes from coalition on own proposals
Public accountability issues	`search_dokument`	KU investigations `organ=KU`

🚀 Opportunities — Optimal MCP Sources

Opportunities are demonstrated by legislative proposals, committee reports, and economic data:

Opportunity Type	MCP Tool	Query Strategy
Pending favourable legislation	`get_motioner`	Coalition party motions, high significance
Positive economic context	IMF WEO/FM data + SCB national accounts + `search_dokument`	FiU positive assessments
Upcoming SOU recommendations	`search_dokument`	`doktyp=sou` recent + `search_regering`
Nordic/EU opportunity	`search_dokument`	`organ=UU` + EU directive implementation
Electoral opportunity	`fetch_report` + `search_voteringar`	Favourable topics + voting patterns

🔴 Threats — Optimal MCP Sources

Threats are demonstrated by opposition motions, no-confidence signals, and external pressures:

Threat Type	MCP Tool	Query Strategy
No-confidence risk	`search_dokument`	`doktyp=miss` (misstroendeförklaring)
Opposition mobilisation	`get_motioner`	High-volume opposition motions on key topics
Budget squeeze	`search_dokument`	FiU dissenting reservationer
Constitutional challenge	`search_dokument`	`organ=KU` active investigations
EU compliance pressure	`search_dokument`	EU-directive related propositioner

🎯 Confidence Level Assignment (5-Level Scale)

Assignment Criteria

Level	Label	Criteria	Example
🟦 5	VERY HIGH	Multiple official sources, cross-validated, no conflicting evidence; primary source is official Riksdag voting records or government legislation	"Coalition secured 176/349 votes on motion FPM45 (voteringsresultat 2025-11-24, cross-checked against party position statements)"
🟩 4	HIGH	Multiple independent sources corroborate; primary source is official Riksdag document or SCB statistics; source current (within 90 days)	"Coalition secured 176/349 votes on budget motion 2025/26:FPM45 (verified via voteringsresultat 2025-11-24)"
🟧 3	MEDIUM	Single primary source confirmed; or multiple secondary sources; or primary source 90–180 days old	"Government polling at 38% approval per Novus (2026-02-15); single pollster"
🟥 2	LOW	Credible but single unverified source; inference from related evidence; source 180+ days old	"Estimated L party dissent based on parliamentary debate tone — no formal vote yet"
⬛ 1	VERY LOW	Speculation only; no direct evidence; inferred from general political patterns	"Possible SD internal disagreement suggested by tone of spokesperson statement"

Confidence Decay Rule

SWOT entries age and their confidence level automatically degrades over time:

Original Confidence	After 30 days	After 90 days	After 180 days
VERY HIGH	VERY HIGH	HIGH	MEDIUM
HIGH	HIGH	MEDIUM	LOW
MEDIUM	MEDIUM	LOW	EXPIRED
LOW	LOW	EXPIRED	EXPIRED
VERY LOW	EXPIRED	EXPIRED	EXPIRED

EXPIRED entries must be re-verified or removed before inclusion in new SWOT analyses.

Clarification: EXPIRED is a lifecycle status, not a confidence level. When temporal decay moves an entry to EXPIRED, it must be handled per the rules below. An active SWOT analysis contains ONLY entries with confidence VERY HIGH, HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW.

Handling EXPIRED Entries

When an entry reaches EXPIRED status:

Re-verify: Check if updated evidence exists via MCP tools (e.g., new vote record, updated SCB data)
Refresh: If new evidence found, create a NEW entry with fresh confidence and updated evidence
Archive: If no new evidence, move entry to "Historical Context" section (informational, not active SWOT)
Remove: If the situation has fundamentally changed (e.g., new coalition formed), delete the entry entirely

Rule: An active SWOT analysis must contain ZERO expired entries. Every entry must have a confidence of VERY HIGH, HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW with a clear evidence trail.

🗳️ Election 2026 — Mandatory SWOT Dimension

Added in v2.3 — Election 2026 is a MANDATORY SWOT dimension for all analyses in 2025–2026.

With the September 2026 Swedish general election approaching, every SWOT analysis MUST include an Electoral Dimension assessment across all four quadrants.

Electoral SWOT Quadrant Requirements

Quadrant	Election 2026 Focus	Evidence Standard
Strengths	Policies that position governing coalition favorably for 2026 (track record, deliveries, approval metrics)	Opinion polling, government implementation reports
Weaknesses	Policy failures or controversies that create electoral vulnerabilities (budget gaps, coalition tensions, unfulfilled promises)	Riksdag debates, media coverage, opposition motions
Opportunities	Policy areas where the government can score electoral wins before September 2026	Legislative calendar, EU funds, pending legislation
Threats	External events or opposition strategies that could damage electoral prospects	Opposition motions, global economic indicators, security events

Minimum Electoral SWOT Requirements

Every SWOT analysis produced within 18 months of September 2026 MUST include:

≥1 Strength entry with specific electoral relevance and evidence
≥1 Weakness entry with specific electoral vulnerability and attack vector potential
≥1 Opportunity entry with timeline relative to election date
≥1 Threat entry with probability assessment and mitigation options

Electoral SWOT Confidence Standards

Electoral SWOT entries require MEDIUM confidence minimum (3+ sources). VERY LOW confidence content is not permitted as an active Electoral SWOT entry and must not be used to satisfy the minimum Strength/Weakness/Opportunity/Threat requirements above. Speculation about electoral consequences without supporting polling or documented party positions may only appear in a clearly separate Speculative / Monitoring Notes subsection, labeled VERY LOW, and isolated from substantive findings.

🔗 Aggregating Party/Coalition SWOTs into Landscape SWOT

When analysing the full political landscape, aggregate individual party SWOTs using this protocol:

Aggregation Steps

flowchart TD
    A[Individual Party SWOTs] --> B[Government Coalition SWOT]
    A --> C[Opposition Bloc SWOT]
    A --> D[Individual Party SWOTs<br/>e.g. SD, V, MP]
    
    B --> E[Landscape SWOT Aggregation]
    C --> E
    D --> E
    
    E --> F{Intersection Analysis}
    F --> G[Government S vs Opposition T<br/>= Contested terrain]
    F --> H[Government W vs Opposition O<br/>= Opposition opportunity]
    F --> I[Shared O<br/>= Cross-party opportunity]
    F --> J[Shared T<br/>= System-level risk]
    
    G --> K[Landscape SWOT Entry]
    H --> K
    I --> K
    J --> K

Intersection Rules

Government Strength + Opposition Threat = Priority watchpoint (contested terrain)
Government Weakness + Opposition Opportunity = High-significance political risk
Shared Opportunity (both sides see it) = Major policy window; cross-party deal possible
Shared Threat (both sides face it) = System-level risk; constitutional/economic dimension

Weighting Rules for Landscape SWOT

When aggregating individual party/coalition SWOTs into a landscape SWOT:

Source SWOT	Weight	Rationale
Government Coalition	0.40	Governing parties set policy agenda; their position has highest system impact
Main Opposition (S)	0.25	Largest opposition party; primary alternative government
SD (supply-and-confidence)	0.20	Kingmaker role; coalition depends on SD support
Minor parties (V, MP, C, L)	0.15	Combined weight; influence through committee and budget negotiations

Conflict resolution: When government SWOT entry contradicts opposition SWOT entry on the same topic, include BOTH in the landscape SWOT as "contested terrain" with a note identifying the conflict. Do NOT average or remove conflicting entries.

Minimum landscape SWOT requirements:

≥ 3 Strengths (at least 1 from government, 1 from opposition perspective)
≥ 3 Weaknesses (at least 1 from each side)
≥ 2 Opportunities (at least 1 shared across perspectives)
≥ 3 Threats (at least 1 system-level)

📚 SWOT Generation Pipeline Reference

The SWOT generation pipeline is driven by AI agents reading methodology documents and producing per-file analysis:

File	Purpose
`scripts/prompts/v2/swot-generation.md`	LLM prompts for SWOT generation (v2)
`scripts/prompts/v2/per-file-intelligence-analysis.md`	Per-file analysis protocol
`analysis/templates/per-file-political-intelligence.md`	Per-file output template with SWOT section
`analysis/templates/swot-analysis.md`	Standalone SWOT template for daily/weekly synthesis
`scripts/ai-analysis/swot/`	SWOT-specific AI analysis scripts
`scripts/analysis-framework/lenses/`	Per-perspective evidence gathering

AI Analysis Protocol for SWOT

The AI agent MUST follow this protocol when generating SWOT analysis:

Read this framework — understand evidence hierarchy, confidence levels, decay rules, AND the advanced techniques below
Query MCP tools — use the tool/query strategies from the tables above for each quadrant
Fill SWOT template — every entry needs: Statement + Evidence (dok_id) + Confidence + Impact
Apply Cross-SWOT Interference — identify how SWOT elements from different actors amplify each other
Apply intersection analysis — identify contested terrain, opposition opportunities, shared risks
Generate TOWS strategic options — convert findings to strategic implications
Validate quality gate — ≥ 2 entries per quadrant, zero opinion-only entries, zero EXPIRED entries

🔄 Advanced Technique 1: Cross-SWOT Interference Analysis

When the political landscape involves multiple actors (government, opposition, kingmaker SD), their SWOT elements don't exist in isolation — they interfere with each other, creating amplification effects:

graph TD
    subgraph "Government SWOT"
        GS["💪 Gov Strength:<br/>Legislative majority"]
        GW["⚡ Gov Weakness:<br/>Internal coalition tension"]
    end
    subgraph "Opposition SWOT"
        OS["💪 Opp Strength:<br/>United front on healthcare"]
        OT["🔴 Opp Threat:<br/>SD migration agenda"]
    end
    subgraph "SD SWOT"
        SS["💪 SD Strength:<br/>Kingmaker position"]
        SW["⚡ SD Weakness:<br/>Policy delivery credibility"]
    end

    GW -->|"amplifies"| OS
    SS -->|"enables"| GS
    SW -->|"undermines"| GS
    OT -->|"constrains"| OS

    style GS fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style GW fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style OS fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style OT fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style SS fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style SW fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF

Interference Matrix

Gov SWOT Element	Opp SWOT Element	Interference Effect	Implication
Gov Strength + Opp Weakness	—	Reinforcing advantage	Government position consolidates
Gov Weakness + Opp Strength	—	Amplified vulnerability	Opposition likely to exploit
Gov Threat + Opp Opportunity	—	Converging pressure	High-risk political moment
Gov Strength + SD Weakness	—	Fragile dependency	Majority depends on unreliable support

Interference Detection Protocol

For each SWOT entry:

Ask: "Does this element AMPLIFY or COUNTERACT any element from another actor's SWOT?"
Map the interference (amplifies, enables, undermines, constrains)
Rate the interference strength (strong/moderate/weak)
Identify the net political effect — is the system moving toward stability or instability?

📊 Advanced Technique 2: TOWS Strategic Options Matrix

TOWS converts SWOT findings into strategic options — answering "So what?" for each SWOT combination:

``$\text{mermaid} \text{graph} \text{TD} \text{SO}["\text{SO} \text{Strategies}<\text{br}/>(\text{Strengths} \times \text{Opportunities})<\text{br}/><\text{em}>\text{Leverage} \text{strengths} \text{to} \text{exploit} \text{opportunities}</\text{em}>"] \text{WO}["\text{WO} \text{Strategies}<\text{br}/>(\text{Weaknesses} \times \text{Opportunities})<\text{br}/><\text{em}>\text{Use} \text{opportunities} \text{to} \text{address} \text{weaknesses}</\text{em}>"] \text{ST}["\text{ST} \text{Strategies}<\text{br}/>(\text{Strengths} \times \text{Threats})<\text{br}/><\text{em}>\text{Use} \text{strengths} \text{to} \text{counter} \text{threats}</\text{em}>"] \text{WT}["\text{WT} \text{Strategies}<\text{br}/>(\text{Weaknesses} \times \text{Threats})<\text{br}/><\text{em}>\text{Defensive}: \text{minimise} \text{vulnerabilities}</\text{em}>"]

\text{style} \text{SO} \text{fill}:#4\text{CAF50},\text{color}:#\text{FFFFFF}
\text{style} \text{WO} \text{fill}:#1565\text{C0},\text{color}:#\text{FFFFFF}
\text{style} \text{ST} \text{fill}:#\text{FFC107},\text{color}:#000000
\text{style} \text{WT} \text{fill}:#\text{D32F2F},\text{color}:#\text{FFFFFF}

$``

TOWS Cell	Political Context	Example
SO (Strength × Opportunity)	"Government uses legislative majority (S1) to pass popular criminal justice reform (O1) before election"	Proactive agenda-setting
WO (Weakness × Opportunity)	"Coalition uses EU mandate (O2) to force internal alignment on migration (W1)"	External pressure as internal discipline
ST (Strength × Threat)	"Government uses budget control (S2) to fund SD-priority policies, neutralising withdrawal threat (T1)"	Pre-emptive concession
WT (Weakness × Threat)	"Internal dissent (W1) + SD withdrawal threat (T1) = highest-risk scenario requiring immediate coalition management"	Defensive damage control

Every SWOT analysis MUST include at least 2 TOWS strategic options with evidence-backed reasoning.

🔮 Advanced Technique 3: Strategic Scenario Generation

Use SWOT combinations to construct plausible political futures (scenarios), each with a probability range and trigger conditions:

Scenario Construction Protocol

Identify 2–3 key uncertainties from the SWOT analysis (e.g., "Will SD support the budget?" + "Will KU investigation escalate?")
Construct 2×2 scenario matrix from the two most impactful uncertainties
Name each scenario and describe its political characteristics
Assign probability ranges based on evidence
Identify trigger indicators that would signal movement toward each scenario

Example Scenario Matrix

%%{init: {
  "theme": "neutral",
  "themeVariables": {
    "quadrant1Fill": "#D32F2F",
    "quadrant2Fill": "#FFC107",
    "quadrant3Fill": "#4CAF50",
    "quadrant4Fill": "#FF9800",
    "quadrantTitleFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointTextFill": "#000000",
    "quadrantXAxisTextFill": "#000000",
    "quadrantYAxisTextFill": "#000000"
  },
  "quadrantChart": {
    "chartWidth": 700,
    "chartHeight": 700,
    "pointLabelFontSize": 12,
    "titleFontSize": 18,
    "quadrantLabelFontSize": 14,
    "xAxisLabelFontSize": 14,
    "yAxisLabelFontSize": 14
  }
}}%%
quadrantChart
    title 🎯 Political Scenario Space (30-day horizon)
    x-axis SD Budget Support --> SD Budget Withdrawal
    y-axis KU Investigation Contained --> KU Investigation Escalates
    quadrant-1 🔴 CRISIS — Coalition collapse
    quadrant-2 🟡 PRESSURE — Managed transition
    quadrant-3 🟢 STATUS QUO — Stable governance
    quadrant-4 🟠 STRESS TEST — Weakened but surviving

Scenario	SD Budget Support	KU Outcome	Probability	Key Trigger
🟢 Status Quo	Supports	Contained	40–55%	SD publicly confirms budget support
🟠 Stress Test	Supports	Escalates	15–25%	KU hearing reveals new evidence
🟡 Pressure	Withdraws	Contained	10–20%	SD demands unmet, partial withdrawal
🔴 Crisis	Withdraws	Escalates	5–15%	Combined pressure triggers no-confidence

📐 Advanced Technique 4: Power-Interest Mapping

Position key stakeholders by their power (ability to influence outcomes) and interest (stake in specific issues) to identify who matters most:

%%{init: {
  "theme": "dark",
  "themeVariables": {
    "quadrant1Fill": "#1565C0",
    "quadrant2Fill": "#2E7D32",
    "quadrant3Fill": "#FF9800",
    "quadrant4Fill": "#D32F2F",
    "quadrantTitleFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointTextFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantXAxisTextFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantYAxisTextFill": "#FFFFFF"
  },
  "quadrantChart": {
    "chartWidth": 700,
    "chartHeight": 700,
    "pointLabelFontSize": 14,
    "titleFontSize": 20,
    "quadrantLabelFontSize": 16,
    "xAxisLabelFontSize": 14,
    "yAxisLabelFontSize": 14
  }
}}%%
quadrantChart
    title 🤝 Stakeholder Power-Interest Map
    x-axis Low Interest --> High Interest
    y-axis Low Power --> High Power
    quadrant-1 MANAGE CLOSELY
    quadrant-2 KEEP SATISFIED
    quadrant-3 MONITOR
    quadrant-4 KEEP INFORMED
    "👨‍💼 Statsminister": [0.80, 0.90]
    "🏛️ SD Leadership": [0.70, 0.75]
    "🏛️ S Opposition": [0.65, 0.60]
    "📺 Media (SVT)": [0.50, 0.50]
    "🇪🇺 EU Commission": [0.30, 0.65]
    "👥 General Public": [0.70, 0.20]

Quadrant	Strategy	Stakeholders
Manage Closely (high power, high interest)	Full analysis; primary intelligence consumer	Government leadership, coalition partners, SD
Keep Satisfied (high power, low interest)	Monitor for engagement; alert on activation	EU Commission, NATO allies, central bank
Keep Informed (low power, high interest)	Regular reporting; citizen engagement	Media, civil society, general public
Monitor (low power, low interest)	Periodic check; no active engagement	Minor parties, regional actors

🇪🇺 EU Parliament Monitor Integration

Cross-Parliament Evidence Hierarchy

Riksdagsmonitor enriches its SWOT analysis with EU Parliament data via the European Parliament MCP Server. When Swedish domestic policy intersects EU legislation, cross-parliament evidence strengthens confidence assessments.

Confidence	Acceptable Sources	Tool / Data Source
HIGH	Official Riksdag voted text, verified roll-call record	`search_voteringar`, `get_betankanden`
HIGH	Government proposition text (approved or tabled)	`get_propositioner`
HIGH	SCB / Eurostat official statistics	SCB PxWeb, Eurostat
HIGH	IMF economic data (WEO / FM / IFS / BOP / GFS_COFOG / DOTS / PCPS / MFS_IR / ER) — primary and only economic source	`scripts/imf-fetch.ts`
HIGH	EP plenary roll-call vote (verified)	EP Open Data `/votes`
MEDIUM	Named MP speech in Riksdag plenary record	`search_anforanden`
MEDIUM	Committee / commission statement (Riksdag or EP)	`search_dokument`, EP `/committees`
MEDIUM	Verified media outlet with named sources	External (flagged)
MEDIUM	Swedish MEP activity in EP plenary or committee	EP `/meps`, EP `/activities`
LOW	Single unnamed source	— (flag for verification)
REJECTED	Analyst inference without evidence	— (not accepted)

Cross-Parliament Rule: When a SWOT entry cites both a Riksdag source (dok_id) and an EP source (EP document reference), it receives a +1 confidence boost (e.g., MEDIUM → HIGH) because cross-parliament corroboration significantly increases reliability.

Cross-Parliament Confidence Decay

SWOT entries using cross-parliament evidence follow slower/extended decay because EU legislative timelines are longer (co-decision procedures span 12–24 months):

Original Confidence	After 30 days	After 90 days	After 180 days
HIGH	HIGH	HIGH	MEDIUM
MEDIUM	MEDIUM	LOW	EXPIRED
LOW	LOW	EXPIRED	EXPIRED

Note: EU legislative procedure references (COD, CNS, APP) decay slower than domestic Riksdag references because EU procedures move on multi-year timescales. A pending EU directive cited in a SWOT entry retains HIGH confidence for 90 days (vs. 30 for domestic-only entries). EXPIRED entries must be re-verified via EP Open Data or removed from active analysis.

🇪🇺 EU Parliament MCP Data Sources for Each Quadrant

✅ Strengths — EU Parliament Dimension

Swedish government strengths reinforced by EU-level legislative achievements and MEP influence:

Strength Type	Riksdag MCP Tool	EU Parliament Source	Cross-Reference Strategy
Legislative achievement with EU mandate	`get_betankanden`, `search_voteringar`	EP `/votes` (roll-call)	Match Riksdag betänkande to EU directive transposition
Coalition cohesion on EU policy	`search_voteringar`, `get_propositioner`	EP `/meps` (Swedish MEP votes)	Compare coalition party discipline: Riksdag vs. EP group
Strong EP group alignment	External/manual: EP seat count data (e.g. European-Parliament-MCP-Server)	EP `/committees`	Swedish MEPs in key EP committee chair/rapporteur roles
EU funding secured	`search_dokument` (`organ=FiU`)	Eurostat, EU budget data	Cross-reference FiU assessment with EU allocation data

⚠️ Weaknesses — EU Parliament Dimension

Party fragmentation and policy stalls visible through cross-parliament comparison:

Weakness Type	Riksdag MCP Tool	EU Parliament Source	Cross-Reference Strategy
Riksdag–EP voting misalignment	`search_voteringar` (defection rates)	EP `/votes` (Swedish MEPs)	Party votes YES in Riksdag but Swedish MEPs vote NO in EP
Unanswered interpellationer on EU policy	`get_interpellationer`	EP `/documents`	Government silent on EU issues raised by opposition
EU infringement proceedings against Sweden	`search_dokument` (`organ=UU`)	EUR-Lex infringement data	Map pending infringements to legislative inaction
Swedish MEP influence deficit	—	EP `/committees`, `/activities`	Few Swedish rapporteurships or committee chairs

🚀 Opportunities — EU Parliament Dimension

Pending EU legislation and cross-party consensus windows:

Opportunity Type	Riksdag MCP Tool	EU Parliament Source	Cross-Reference Strategy
Pending EU legislation favourable to Sweden	`get_propositioner`, `get_calendar_events`	EP `/documents` (COD procedures)	Match pending EP votes to Riksdag preparatory work
Cross-party consensus in EP benefiting Sweden	`search_voteringar`	EP `/votes` (Swedish MEP unanimity)	All Swedish MEPs voting together = strong national position
EU funding opportunities	`search_dokument` (`organ=FiU`)	EU budget / NextGenerationEU	Identify uncommitted EU funds for Swedish priorities
Nordic bloc coordination in EP	`search_dokument` (`organ=UU`)	EP `/meps` (Nordic MEPs)	Joint Nordic positions in EP committees and votes

🔴 Threats — EU Parliament Dimension

SD leverage on EU policy, budget disputes, and opposition attacks with EU ammunition:

Threat Type	Riksdag MCP Tool	EU Parliament Source	Cross-Reference Strategy
SD leveraging EU migration policy	`search_voteringar`, `search_anforanden`	EP `/votes` (ECR group)	SD demands map to ECR group positions in EP
Opposition using EU comparison data	`get_motioner`, `search_anforanden`	Eurostat, EP `/documents`	S/V/MP citing EU benchmarks Sweden fails to meet
EU regulatory burden on Swedish industry	`search_dokument`	EP `/documents` (pending directives)	Upcoming EU regulation impact on Swedish competitiveness
Budget disputes amplified by EU contributions	`search_voteringar` (budget votes)	EU budget data	Swedish EU contribution changes affecting domestic budget

🔄 Cross-Parliament SWOT Aggregation

Riksdag ↔ EU Parliament Aggregation Pipeline

When political analysis requires both domestic and EU-level intelligence, individual party SWOTs aggregate through two parliamentary layers:

flowchart TD
    subgraph "Layer 1: Individual Party SWOTs"
        M["🟦 M<br/>Moderaterna"]
        KD["🟦 KD<br/>Kristdemokraterna"]
        L["🟦 L<br/>Liberalerna"]
        SD["🟨 SD<br/>Sverigedemokraterna"]
        S["🟥 S<br/>Socialdemokraterna"]
        V["🟥 V<br/>Vänsterpartiet"]
        MP["🟩 MP<br/>Miljöpartiet"]
        C["🟩 C<br/>Centerpartiet"]
    end

    subgraph "Layer 2: Bloc Aggregation"
        GOV["💼 Government Bloc SWOT<br/>M + KD + L + SD<br/>(Tidöavtalet)"]
        OPP["📢 Opposition Bloc SWOT<br/>S + V + MP + C"]
    end

    subgraph "Layer 3: Riksdag Landscape"
        RIK["🇸🇪 Riksdag Landscape SWOT"]
    end

    subgraph "Layer 4: EU Parliament Dimension"
        EPMEP["🇪🇺 Swedish MEP SWOT<br/>21 MEPs across EP groups"]
        EPGRP["🇪🇺 EP Group Alignment SWOT<br/>EPP · S&D · RE · ECR · Greens/EFA · GUE/NGL"]
    end

    subgraph "Layer 5: Cross-Parliament Synthesis"
        XSWOT["🌐 Cross-Parliament<br/>Landscape SWOT"]
    end

    M --> GOV
    KD --> GOV
    L --> GOV
    SD --> GOV
    S --> OPP
    V --> OPP
    MP --> OPP
    C --> OPP

    GOV --> RIK
    OPP --> RIK

    RIK --> XSWOT
    EPMEP --> XSWOT
    EPGRP --> XSWOT

    XSWOT --> INT{{"🔍 Cross-Parliament<br/>Intersection Analysis"}}
    INT --> CT["⚔️ Contested terrain:<br/>Gov Strength + Opp Threat<br/>+ EP divergence"]
    INT --> PR["⚠️ Political risk:<br/>Gov Weakness + Opp Opportunity<br/>+ EU infringement"]
    INT --> PW["🤝 Policy window:<br/>Shared Opportunity<br/>+ EP cross-group consensus"]
    INT --> SR["🚨 System-level risk:<br/>Shared Threat<br/>+ EU compliance gap"]

    style GOV fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#1565C0
    style OPP fill:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#D32F2F
    style RIK fill:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#1565C0
    style EPMEP fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2196F3
    style EPGRP fill:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2196F3
    style XSWOT fill:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#00897B
    style CT fill:#FF9800,color:#000000,stroke:#FF9800
    style PR fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#D32F2F
    style PW fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4CAF50
    style SR fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#7B1FA2

Cross-Parliament Intersection Rules

Riksdag SWOT Element	EU Parliament Element	Intersection Type	Significance
Gov Strength + EP group alignment	Swedish MEPs in majority EP group	Reinforced strength	Sweden's position amplified in EU negotiations
Gov Weakness + EP infringement pressure	Pending EU infringement case	Amplified vulnerability	Domestic policy failure + EU enforcement = high risk
Gov Threat (SD leverage) + ECR group dynamics	ECR group internal splits	Mediated threat	SD leverage may be constrained by EP group realities
Opp Opportunity + EP cross-group majority	Broad EP consensus on policy	Enhanced opportunity	Opposition cites EU consensus to pressure government
Shared Opportunity + EU legislative window	Pending COD procedure favourable to Sweden	Strategic window	Cross-bloc domestic deal possible under EU mandate
Shared Threat + EU compliance deadline	Hard EU transposition deadline	Elevated system risk	Failure to act has legal consequences beyond domestic politics

Swedish Party → EP Group Mapping

Understanding which EP groups align with Swedish parties is essential for cross-parliament SWOT:

Swedish Party	EP Political Group	Alignment Strength	SWOT Implication
M (Moderaterna)	EPP (European People's Party)	Strong	EPP majority positions reinforce M's domestic agenda
KD (Kristdemokraterna)	EPP	Strong	KD benefits from EPP family policy positions
L (Liberalerna)	Renew Europe (RE)	Moderate	RE liberal positions sometimes conflict with Tidöavtalet
SD (Sverigedemokraterna)	ECR (European Conservatives)	Moderate	ECR migration stance aligns but EU-scepticism limits leverage
S (Socialdemokraterna)	S&D (Socialists & Democrats)	Strong	S&D positions provide ammunition for opposition criticism
V (Vänsterpartiet)	GUE/NGL (The Left)	Moderate	EU-critical stance limits V's use of EP evidence
MP (Miljöpartiet)	Greens/EFA	Strong	Green Deal alignment gives MP strong EU-backed arguments
C (Centerpartiet)	Renew Europe (RE)	Moderate	RE market-liberal positions support C's deregulation agenda

🛡️ Evidence-Based vs. Opinion-Based SWOT — Full Decision Tree

Every SWOT entry — whether from Riksdag, EU Parliament, or cross-parliament sources — must pass this gate:

flowchart TD
    A["📝 SWOT Entry Submitted"] --> B{"Has verifiable<br/>evidence?"}

    B -->|"✅ Yes"| C{"Source type?"}
    B -->|"❌ No"| REJ["🚫 REJECTED<br/>Opinion-Based<br/>Return for evidence<br/>gathering or discard"]

    C -->|"Riksdag dok_id<br/>or roll-call vote"| D["📊 Riksdag-Sourced<br/>HIGH confidence"]
    C -->|"EP document ref<br/>or roll-call vote"| E["🇪🇺 EP-Sourced<br/>HIGH confidence"]
    C -->|"Both Riksdag +<br/>EP sources"| F["🌐 Cross-Parliament<br/>HIGH+ confidence<br/>(boosted)"]
    C -->|"Named speech or<br/>committee statement"| G["💬 Statement-Sourced<br/>MEDIUM confidence"]
    C -->|"Verified media<br/>with named sources"| H["📰 Media-Sourced<br/>MEDIUM confidence"]
    C -->|"Single unnamed<br/>source"| I["⚠️ Single-Source<br/>LOW confidence<br/>Flag for verification"]

    D --> PUB["✅ PUBLISHABLE<br/>Include in active SWOT"]
    E --> PUB
    F --> PUB
    G --> PUB
    H --> PUB
    I --> PUB

    REJ --> REWORK["🔄 Rework: Gather evidence<br/>via MCP tools or<br/>discard entry"]

    style A fill:#455A64,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#455A64
    style B fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#7B1FA2
    style C fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2196F3
    style D fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4CAF50
    style E fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2196F3
    style F fill:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#00897B
    style G fill:#FF9800,color:#000000,stroke:#FF9800
    style H fill:#FF9800,color:#000000,stroke:#FF9800
    style I fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00
    style PUB fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4CAF50
    style REJ fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#D32F2F
    style REWORK fill:#9E9E9E,color:#000000,stroke:#9E9E9E

⛔ Anti-Pattern Warning

🚨 SWOT entries without specific evidence citations (dok_id, MCP tool outputs, EP document references, or named sources) are REJECTED.

This is a hard gate — no exceptions. Analyst inference, general impressions, "common knowledge," and unsourced claims do not qualify as evidence. If an entry cannot cite at least one of:

A Riksdag document ID (dok_id, e.g., H901FiU1)

An MCP tool query result (e.g., search_voteringar output)

An EP document reference (e.g., A9-0123/2026)

A named primary source with date and context

…then it must not appear in a published SWOT analysis. Return it for evidence gathering via the appropriate MCP tools, or discard it entirely.

🔄 SWOT Evolution Tracking (v2.2)

SWOT analyses are living documents that change as the political landscape evolves. This section defines how to track SWOT changes over time, detect inter-quadrant migration, and aggregate cross-day SWOT data for weekly/monthly reviews.

SWOT Delta Template

When producing sequential SWOT analyses (e.g., daily or weekly), include a SWOT Delta section showing what changed since the previous analysis:

Quadrant	Entry	Status	Prior Day	Current Day	Evidence for Change
Strength	Coalition voting cohesion at 89%	Persists ✅	S1: 89% cohesion (2026-03-31)	S1: 89% cohesion (2026-04-01)	`search_voteringar rm=2025/26` — no new votes
Strength	L above 4% threshold	Degraded ⬇️	S3: L at 4.4% (Novus 2026-03-15)	→ Moved to Weakness	SCB partisympati 2026-04-01: L at 3.8% (±1.1%)
Weakness	L threshold risk	New 🆕	(not present)	W4: L at 3.8% (±1.1%)	Migrated from Strength S3
Opportunity	FiU spring budget amendment	Resolved ✓	O2: Spring amending budget expected	(removed — event occurred)	Budget tabled 2026-04-01 via `get_propositioner`
Threat	SD migration ultimatum	Escalated ↑	T1: SD rhetoric intensifying	T1: SD formal demand via interpellation	`get_interpellationer` dok_id: HD04567

Status Codes

Code	Meaning	Action Required
Persists ✅	Entry unchanged — same evidence, same assessment	Carry forward with updated date
New 🆕	Entry did not exist in prior analysis	Document the triggering evidence and date
Degraded ⬇️	Entry's evidence weakened or confidence decayed	Update confidence level; consider migration
Escalated ↑	Entry's severity or confidence increased	Update with new evidence; re-score
Resolved ✓	The underlying situation no longer applies	Remove from active SWOT; archive in historical context
Migrated ↔	Entry moved to a different quadrant	Document both the old and new quadrant

Inter-Quadrant Migration Rules

SWOT entries can migrate between quadrants as the political situation evolves. Common migration patterns:

graph LR
    S["✅ Strength"]
    W["⚠️ Weakness"]
    O["🚀 Opportunity"]
    T["🔴 Threat"]

    S -->|"Evidence reversal<br/>(e.g., polling drops)"| W
    W -->|"Remediation<br/>(e.g., policy reform)"| S
    O -->|"Window closes<br/>(e.g., deadline passes)"| T
    T -->|"Mitigated<br/>(e.g., agreement reached)"| O
    O -->|"Captured successfully"| S
    T -->|"Materialized"| W

    style S fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style W fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style O fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
    style T fill:#FFC107,color:#000000

Migration Examples

Migration	Example	Trigger Evidence
Strength → Weakness	Coalition voting cohesion 89% → 62% after contested FöU vote	`search_voteringar rm=2025/26, bet=FöU8`
Opportunity → Threat	EU Green Deal funding window closes without Swedish application submitted	EU deadline + `search_dokument` for missing proposition
Threat → Weakness	SD migration ultimatum materializes — coalition partner defects on SfU vote	`search_voteringar` showing SD voting with opposition
Weakness → Strength	Government successfully renegotiates Tidöavtal migration section	Joint coalition press conference + `search_dokument`
Opportunity → Strength	Government captures spring budget opportunity with cross-party support	`search_voteringar rm=2025/26, bet=FiU20`

Rule: Every migration MUST cite the specific MCP evidence that triggered the move. Undocumented migrations are rejected.

Entry	Quadrant	Appearances (out of N days)	Persistence Rate	Trend
Coalition cohesion ≥85%	Strength	5/5	100%	→ Stable
L threshold risk	Weakness	3/5	60%	↑ Emerging
SD migration demands	Threat	5/5	100%	↑ Escalating
FiU spring budget	Opportunity	2/5	40%	↓ Resolving

Step 3: Weighted Aggregation

For the aggregated weekly/monthly SWOT:

Include entries with ≥60% persistence rate as core items
Flag entries with 30–59% persistence as emerging/resolving
Exclude entries with <30% persistence (one-off events) unless they triggered a migration
Weight by confidence: HIGH entries count 1.0×, MEDIUM 0.7×, LOW 0.4×

Step 4: Delta Summary

Produce a period-level delta:

Weekly SWOT Delta (2026-03-31 to 2026-04-06):

New Strengths: 1 (budget passed with cross-party support)

Lost Strengths: 1 (L polling dropped below 4% → migrated to Weakness)

New Threats: 2 (SD interpellation, ECJ infringement warning)

Resolved Opportunities: 1 (spring budget tabled)

Net SWOT Balance: Weakening (−1 Strength, +2 Threats)

templates/swot-analysis.md — SWOT template
reference/isms-style-guide-adaptation.md — Writing standards
SWOT.md — Platform strategic SWOT
political-style-guide.md — Writing standards
EU Parliament MCP Server — EP data integration
EU Parliament Monitor — Pan-European legislative intelligence

Document Control:

Path: /analysis/methodologies/political-swot-framework.md
CIA Reference: CIA SWOT.md
Version: 2.3
Advanced Techniques: Cross-SWOT Interference, TOWS Matrix, Scenario Generation, Power-Interest Mapping, EU Parliament Cross-Reference, SWOT Evolution Tracking, Election 2026 Mandatory Dimension
Key Changes v2.3: Election 2026 as mandatory SWOT dimension (electoral quadrant requirements, confidence standards for electoral entries), 5-level confidence scale replacing HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW (VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW with updated decay table)
Key Changes v2.2: SWOT Evolution Tracking (SWOT Delta template, inter-quadrant migration rules with Mermaid diagram, cross-document aggregation protocol for weekly/monthly reviews)
EU Integration: European Parliament MCP Server data sources, cross-parliament aggregation, Swedish MEP ↔ EP group mapping
Classification: Public
Next Review: 2026-09-01