intelligence-assessment.md

May 15, 2026 · View on GitHub

🕵️ Intelligence Assessment Template

📊 Finished Intelligence Product on Coordinated Political Activity
🎯 Pattern Detection · Actor Attribution · Intent Assessment · Forecasting

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.2 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-25 (UTC) 🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

📌 Template instructions: Produce this file on every run, including light-day runs with weak or no confirmed coordination signals. Save as analysis/daily/${ARTICLE_DATE}/${DOC_TYPE}/intelligence-assessment.md. When evidence shows a coordinated pattern pointing to a specific strategy or actor group, complete the full intelligence assessment; when it does not, publish a concise low-signal assessment that explicitly states no coordinated pattern met the reporting threshold. Uses OSINT methodology and ACH.

✨ What to produce: A finished intelligence product with BLUF, actor-and-intent analysis, pattern evidence table, forecast, and confidence label when coordination indicators are supported by the evidence; otherwise, produce a light-day intelligence note with BLUF, negative finding/threshold statement, brief evidence summary, watch indicators, and confidence label. Every positive pattern claim cites at least three dok_ids and names the principal actors with party affiliation.

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

Slot Value
Owning methodology per-artifact-methodologies.md
Owning gate check Check 7 (Family C — ≥ 3 KJ + PIRs) — see 05-analysis-gate.md
Required inputs all Family A + scenario-analysis.md + devils-advocate.md
Horizon band per-run (per scripts/horizon-context.ts)
Output family Family C — Strategic Extensions
Aggregation order 3 of 30 in canonical order (see scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts)
Reader Intelligence Guide row generated from intelligence-assessment.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	Check 7 (Family C — ≥ 3 KJ + PIRs) — see `05-analysis-gate.md`
Required inputs	all Family A + scenario-analysis.md + devils-advocate.md
Horizon band	per-run (per `scripts/horizon-context.ts`)
Output family	Family C — Strategic Extensions
Aggregation order	3 of 30 in canonical order (see `scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts`)
Reader Intelligence Guide	row generated from `intelligence-assessment.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.

🔄 Tradecraft Context

Element	Value
F3EAD Stage	ANALYZE → DISSEMINATE — finished intelligence product
PIRs Served	`[REQUIRED: Open with the PIRs this assessment addresses]`
Admiralty Floor	[A1] for Key Judgments (multiple sources); [B2] for supporting evidence
WEP + ODNI	MANDATORY — every Key Judgment uses canonical WEP terminology (almost certain / very likely / likely / roughly even / unlikely / very unlikely / remote) + ODNI confidence (HIGH/MODERATE/LOW); no generic "possible" or "could". Follow the canonical wording in `political-style-guide.md`.
Source Diversity Floor	P0 (Key Judgments): ≥4 sources; P1 (supporting evidence): ≥3 sources; single-source claims prohibited
SAT(s) Applied	ACH (competing hypotheses), Key Assumptions Check, Indicators and Signposts
ICD 203 Standards	1 (source quality), 2 (uncertainties), 3 (judgments vs assumptions), 4 (alternative analysis)

🎯 PIRs Addressed

[REQUIRED] — List the Priority Intelligence Requirements this assessment informs. Reference the canonical PIR catalog in political-style-guide.md.

PIR Code	PIR Question	How This Assessment Addresses It
PIR-1	Coalition Stability	`[Describe how findings relate to coalition dynamics]`
PIR-7	Democratic Norms	`[Describe how findings relate to transparency/accountability]`

📋 Assessment Context

Field	Value
Assessment ID	`INT-YYYY-MM-DD-NNN`
Generated	`YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM UTC`
Subject	`e.g., Coordinated S-party interpellation pattern on foreign policy, week 17`
Time window	`e.g., 2026-04-14 to 2026-04-21`
Scope documents	`list of dok_ids`
Overall Confidence	`🟩 HIGH`
Audience	`editorial · forward-watch · pipeline-analysis`

📈 Confidence Distribution by Key Judgment

[REQUIRED] Include explicit posterior confidence per KJ after Pass 2 / re-run evidence updates.

Key Judgment	Prior confidence (Pass 1)	Evidence update	Posterior confidence (required)	Change rationale
KJ-1	`HIGH`	`[REQUIRED]`	`HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW`	`[REQUIRED]`
KJ-2	`MEDIUM`	`[REQUIRED]`	`HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW`	`[REQUIRED]`
KJ-3	`LOW`	`[REQUIRED]`	`HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW`	`[REQUIRED]`

🎯 BLUF

[2–3 sentences. Lead with the pattern and its political implication. Name the principal actor. Cite the strongest single piece of evidence with confidence label.]

Example: Between 14–21 April, three opposition MPs coordinated six interpellations on foreign-policy themes (Middle East, Ukraine, Stockholm Initiative), attacking the government's diplomatic coherence in the run-up to the September 2026 election. Pattern confidence: 🟩 HIGH — three filings on the same date (HD11679, HD11680, HD11683) with identical structural framing.

🧭 Pattern Map

graph LR
    ACT["👤 Actor Group<br/>S foreign-policy<br/>spokespersons"] --> P1["📝 HD11680<br/>Israel policy"]
    ACT --> P2["📝 HD11683<br/>Syria policy"]
    ACT --> P3["📝 HD11679<br/>Stockholm Initiative"]
    P1 --> INT["🎯 Intent<br/>Diplomatic-coherence<br/>attack"]
    P2 --> INT
    P3 --> INT
    INT --> OUT["📅 Expected outcome<br/>Minister reply pressure<br/>+ chamber debate"]

    style ACT fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF
    style P1 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
    style P2 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
    style P3 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
    style INT fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style OUT fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF

🗂️ Evidence Register

#	Evidence	Source	Admiralty	Confidence	Pattern contribution
E1	HD11679 filed 2026-04-18 by Anna Karin (S)	`get_interpellationer`	[A1]	🟦 VERY HIGH	Same-day filing cluster
E2	HD11680 filed 2026-04-18 by Peter M (S)	`get_interpellationer`	[A1]	🟦 VERY HIGH	Same-day filing cluster
E3	HD11683 filed 2026-04-18 by Olle K (S)	`get_interpellationer`	[A1]	🟦 VERY HIGH	Same-day filing cluster
E4	Identical 3-paragraph structure across E1–E3	Document text analysis	[B2]	🟩 HIGH	Structural coordination
E5	All three authors attended same S party-group meeting 2026-04-17	Riksdag calendar	[B2]	🟧 MEDIUM	Opportunity to coordinate
E6	Shared framing keywords ("trovärdighet", "inkonsistens")	Full-text match	[B2]	🟩 HIGH	Narrative coordination

👤 Actor Analysis

Actor	Role	Party	Prior pattern	Coordination strength
Anna Karin	UU vice-chair	S	12 interpellations in 2025/26, 8 on foreign policy	🟦 VERY HIGH
Peter M	UU member	S	7 interpellations, 6 on foreign policy	🟩 HIGH
Olle K	UU alternate	S	4 interpellations, 2 on foreign policy	🟧 MEDIUM
Coordination hub	S group leader in UU	S	—	🟩 HIGH (inferred)

🧠 Intent Assessment

flowchart TD
    Q["❓ What do the actors want?"] --> H1["Hypothesis A: Accountability pressure<br/>(routine opposition)"]
    Q --> H2["Hypothesis B: Pre-election narrative<br/>(foreign-policy incoherence)"]
    Q --> H3["Hypothesis C: Internal-S positioning<br/>(foreign-policy lane)"]
    H1 --> A1["Evidence: consistent with normal<br/>interpellation tempo"]
    H2 --> A2["Evidence: timing aligns with<br/>April–May campaign launch"]
    H3 --> A3["Evidence: identical framing<br/>language"]

    style Q fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
    style H2 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style H1 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style H3 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF

Hypothesis	Weight	Why
🅐 Routine opposition accountability	25 %	Volume is normal for UU but structural coordination is atypical
🅑 Pre-election narrative construction	55 %	Framing vocabulary and timing consistent with launch-campaign playbook
🅒 Internal-S positioning (foreign-policy credential building)	20 %	Three authors have unequal prior track records in this area

Assessment: Most likely combined A + B — routine accountability tool deployed with amplified narrative framing ahead of the September 2026 election. Confidence: 🟩 HIGH.

🔮 Forecast

Timeframe	Expected development	Probability	Indicators
0–14 days	Minister replies scheduled, plenary debate	80 %	Calendar shows plenary slot
14–45 days	Follow-up written questions from same authors	65 %	`get_fragor` check
45–90 days	Issue surfaces in party-leader debate	50 %	Party programme committee minutes
Pre-election	Incorporated into S campaign platform	70 %	Annotate programme draft when available

📊 Quantitative Transmission Check (SCB + Riksbank)

Complete this block for assessments where economic transmission affects intent, timing or voter impact. It is a Swedish ground-truth layer and complements — but does not replace — IMF macro/fiscal context.

Mechanism	Required source	economicProvenance provider	Latest signal	Intelligence implication
Price shock / relief channel	`tsx scripts/scb-fetch.ts preset --preset cpi` + `tsx scripts/scb-fetch.ts preset --preset fuel-prices`	`scb`	—	Does the measure materially affect household cost pressure?
Labour-market sensitivity	`tsx scripts/scb-fetch.ts preset --preset aku`	`scb`	—	Does unemployment amplify or mute the political signal?
Household exposure	`tsx scripts/scb-fetch.ts preset --preset household-economy`	`scb`	—	Which voter segments face the strongest disposable-income effect?
Monetary-policy reaction function	`tsx scripts/riksbank-fetch.ts repo-rate-path` + `tsx scripts/riksbank-fetch.ts minutes`	`riksbank`	—	Does the Riksbank path support or contradict the claimed transmission?

Assessment note: Cite concrete SCB/Riksbank values before making a forecast about disposable income, consumer sentiment or polling impact. If either source is unavailable, label the gap and fall back to cached analysis/data/scb/ or analysis/data/riksbank/ artifacts.

🚩 Red Flags (elevate scrutiny)

Signal	Meaning	Recommended action
New MP joins the interpellation cluster	Broader coordination	Track new sponsor profile
Minister missing scheduled reply	Political escalation	Monitor chamber debate calendar
Topic expansion to defence	Strategic widening	Trigger separate assessment

🧮 Quality Metrics

Metric	Value
Sources consulted (MCP queries)	`N`
dok_ids cited	`N`
Named actors	`N`
Alternative hypotheses considered	3
Confidence level	🟩 HIGH

📎 Links

Link	Path
Cross-reference map	`cross-reference-map.md`
Devil's advocate	`devils-advocate.md`
Stakeholder perspectives	`stakeholder-perspectives.md`
OSINT methodology	`osint-methodologies` SKILL

Document Control

Template path: /analysis/templates/intelligence-assessment.md
Referenced by: ai-driven-analysis-guide.md § Step 5
Classification: Public
Next Review: 2026-07-21

✅ 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.