๐ Hack23 AB โ Political Intelligence Through Rigorous Methodology
diff --git a/analysis/methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md b/analysis/methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md index bb56db81d..676849174 100644 --- a/analysis/methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md +++ b/analysis/methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 4.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) -**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-07-03 +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 5.0 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-09-01 **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public --- @@ -1510,18 +1510,29 @@ assume article pages perform this step automatically unless that initializer is Every analysis file MUST include at least 1 Mermaid diagram. For synthesis files, include at least 2: ``` -## Required Mermaid Diagrams per Analysis Type - -| Analysis File | Required Diagram(s) | Content | -|---------------|---------------------|---------| -| synthesis-summary.md | 2: Document relationship + Risk interconnection | Show how documents relate and how risks cascade | -| swot-analysis.md | 1: SWOT quadrant mapping with cross-links | Show SโO exploits and WโT amplifications | -| risk-assessment.md | 1: Risk heat map or cascading risk chain | Show LรI positioning and risk dependencies | -| threat-analysis.md | 1: Threat actor diagram or attack tree | Show threat sources, pathways, and mitigations | -| stakeholder-perspectives.md | 1: Stakeholder impact network | Show which stakeholders are affected and how | -| significance-scoring.md | 1: Multi-dimensional scoring radar | Show 5-dimension significance breakdown | -| cross-reference-map.md | 1: Document relationship graph | Show ALL detected cross-references | -``` +## Required Mermaid Diagrams per Analysis Type (v5.0) + +| Analysis File | Required Diagram Type | Diagram Purpose | Minimum Color-Coded Nodes | +|---------------|----------------------|-----------------|:-------------------------:| +| per-file-political-intelligence.md | `flowchart LR` โ classification tree + `quadrantChart` โ SWOT impact | Classification decision path + political impact mapping | 4 colors | +| synthesis-summary.md | `graph TD` โ intelligence dashboard + `graph LR` โ SWOT balance | Daily landscape overview + coalition assessment | 4 colors each | +| swot-analysis.md | `graph TD` โ SWOT quadrant mapping with cross-links | SโO exploits and WโT amplifications | 4 colors | +| risk-assessment.md | `graph TD` โ risk heat map + `flowchart TD` โ cascading chain | LรI positioning and risk dependencies | 4 tiers (green/yellow/orange/red) | +| threat-analysis.md | `graph LR` โ attack tree (threat taxonomy branches) | Threat sources, pathways, and mitigations | 6 threat categories | +| stakeholder-impact.md | `graph TD` โ stakeholder impact network | Stakeholder groups affected and direction | 6 stakeholder groups | +| significance-scoring.md | `graph TD` โ scoring profile + decision gate | 5-dimension significance breakdown | 5 decision outcomes | +| political-classification.md | `graph LR` โ classification decision tree | Sensitivity + urgency + scope paths | 4 paths | + +### Diagram Type Mandate by Analysis Context + +| Analysis Context | Mandatory Diagram Type | Reason | +|-----------------|----------------------|--------| +| **Legislative process** | `flowchart` (LR or TD) โ stages from committee to royal assent | Visualize process status and bottlenecks | +| **Policy evolution over time** | `timeline` or `gantt` โ chronological development | Track policy trajectory | +| **Coalition/party dynamics** | `quadrantChart` โ party position mapping | Reveal alignment and opposition patterns | +| **Risk landscape** | `graph TD` with color-coded LรI scores | Visualize risk tiers and dependencies | +| **Stakeholder relationships** | `graph LR` with directional influence arrows | Map power dynamics and coalition potential | +| **Threat decomposition** | `flowchart` attack tree structure | Identify threat vectors and mitigations | --- @@ -1894,6 +1905,118 @@ a separate reservation on proportionality grounds. [HIGH confidence] --- +| Data count inconsistencies (title vs body) | Not tracked | Multiple instances | ๐ด New issue | + +--- + +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Lens โ Mandatory Analysis Requirement (v5.0) + +> **Added in v5.0 โ ALL analyses MUST include an Election 2026 section.** + +With the September 2026 Swedish general election approaching, every political intelligence analysis MUST assess electoral implications. This requirement applies to all analysis templates and workflow outputs. + +### Mandatory Election 2026 Assessment Dimensions + +Every per-file analysis and synthesis summary MUST assess: + +1. **Electoral Impact** โ How does this document/event affect September 2026 election positioning? +2. **Coalition Scenarios** โ Which coalition configurations benefit/suffer? +3. **Voter Salience** โ Which voter segments are most affected, and by how much? +4. **Campaign Vulnerability** โ Does this create campaign attack vectors for opposition? +5. **Policy Legacy** โ Will this become an electoral asset or liability by September 2026? + +### Electoral Significance Classifications + +| Classification | Definition | Action | +|---------------|-----------|--------| +| ๐ด **CRITICAL** | Event will directly affect 2026 election outcome | Include in all synthesis summaries; flag for electoral tracking | +| ๐ **HIGH** | Significant pre-election narrative contribution | Mandatory inclusion in forward indicators | +| ๐ก **MODERATE** | Peripheral electoral relevance | Include if space allows; note in stakeholder analysis | +| ๐ข **LOW** | Minimal electoral impact | Optional brief mention | +| โช **NEGLIGIBLE** | No discernible electoral dimension | Include Election 2026 section and explicitly mark as negligible electoral relevance | + +### Pre-Election Analysis Calendar + +| Milestone | Date | Analysis Focus | +|-----------|------|---------------| +| Budget proposition deadline | Sep 2026 | Fiscal credibility, welfare promises | +| Last major Riksdag session | Jun 2026 | Legislative legacy assessment | +| Party conference season | SepโOct 2025 | Policy positioning, coalition signals | +| EU implications window | Ongoing | Sweden's EU presidency, ECHR compliance | +| **General Election** | **Sep 2026** | **Full electoral analysis required** | + +--- + +## ๐ฏ 5-Level Confidence Scale (v5.0) + +> **Replaces binary HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW scale across ALL analysis types.** + +| Level | Label | Criteria | Evidence Threshold | Color Code | +|-------|-------|----------|--------------------|:----------:| +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Speculation only, single unverified source | 0โ1 sources, no corroboration | `#6c757d` | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators | 2 sources, indirect evidence | `#dc3545` | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration | 3+ sources, moderate agreement | `#fd7e14` | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Official records, documented data, direct evidence | Official docs, voting records, committee reports | `#28a745` | +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus | Multiple official sources, cross-validated | `#0d6efd` | + +### Confidence Level Application Rules + +- **VERY HIGH** โ Applies only to claims backed by official voting records, committee decisions, government propositions, or multiple verified news sources with cross-validation. +- **HIGH** โ Official documents (riksdag API data, government press releases) consulted but not independently cross-validated. +- **MEDIUM** โ Multiple sources available but with some inconsistency or incomplete coverage. +- **LOW** โ Limited evidence; claim is inferential or based on pattern recognition without direct confirmation. +- **VERY LOW** โ Speculative; only a single indirect indicator with no corroborating evidence. + +### Migration from 3-Level to 5-Level Scale + +When upgrading existing analyses to use the 5-level scale: +- Previous `HIGH` โ `HIGH` (4) or `VERY HIGH` (5) depending on cross-validation status +- Previous `MEDIUM` โ `MEDIUM` (3) or `LOW` (2) depending on evidence density +- Previous `LOW` โ `LOW` (2) or `VERY LOW` (1) depending on source quality + +--- + +## ๐ Mandatory Mermaid Diagram Requirements (v5.0) + +Each analysis type MUST include the specified Mermaid diagram type: + +| Analysis Type | Required Mermaid Diagram | Purpose | +|--------------|------------------------|---------| +| **Legislative process analyses** | `flowchart` โ showing legislative stages (committee โ floor vote โ royal assent) | Visualize process status and bottlenecks | +| **Policy evolution analyses** | `timeline` or `gantt` โ showing policy development over time | Track policy trajectory | +| **Coalition/party dynamics** | `quadrantChart` or `mindmap` โ mapping party positions | Reveal alignment patterns | +| **Risk assessment** | `graph TD` with color-coded risk nodes (LรI scores) | Visualize risk landscape | +| **Stakeholder relationships** | `graph LR` with directional arrows showing influence | Map power dynamics | +| **Threat analysis** | `flowchart` attack tree (LR direction, threat taxonomy) | Decompose threat vectors | + +### Mermaid Color Standards + +``` +๐ด CRITICAL/SEVERE/RESTRICTED: fill:#dc3545,color:#fff +๐ HIGH/URGENT: fill:#fd7e14,color:#fff +๐ก MEDIUM/ELEVATED: fill:#ffc107,color:#000 +๐ข LOW/ROUTINE/PUBLIC: fill:#28a745,color:#fff +๐ต INFORMATION/ELEVATED: fill:#0d6efd,color:#fff +โช NEUTRAL/PLACEHOLDER: fill:#6c757d,color:#fff +``` + +--- + +## ๐ Historical Comparison Requirements (v5.0) + +Every synthesis-level analysis MUST include a historical comparison with: + +1. **Same period last riksmรถte** โ Compare document volumes, risk levels, coalition dynamics +2. **Same period last year** โ Year-over-year trend indicators +3. **Pre-election equivalents** โ Compare to equivalent pre-election periods in 2021/22 + +**Historical Comparison Minimum Requirements:** +- At least 3 metric comparisons with trend arrows (โ/โ/โ) +- At least 1 precedent from a prior riksmรถte with documented outcome +- Context statement of 2โ3 sentences explaining whether this is a historically unusual period + +--- + ## ๐ Related Documents | Document | Purpose | @@ -1913,11 +2036,12 @@ a separate reservation on proportionality grounds. [HIGH confidence] **Document Control:** - **Path:** `/analysis/methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md` -- **Version:** 4.2 +- **Version:** 5.0 +- **Key Changes v5.0:** Election 2026 Lens (mandatory 5-dimension electoral assessment for ALL analyses), 5-Level Confidence Scale replacing binary HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW, Mermaid diagram mandates per analysis type (flowchart/timeline/quadrantChart/mindmap), Historical Comparison requirements (3 time periods + precedents), pre-election analysis calendar - **Key Changes v4.2:** Empty Data Handling Protocol (lookback strategy, direct MCP retrieval, carry-forward protocol, minimum output requirements), Per-File Analysis Output Example (worked example of betรคnkande analysis with SWOT/risk/forward indicators) - **Key Changes v4.0:** AI article content generation protocol (5 mandatory sections with prompts), visualization integration protocol (Chart.js/D3.js), policy domain inference with committee mapping, pre-article analysis integration requirement, AI self-evaluation quality gate, empty analysis fallback protocol, 2026-04-03 systemic quality audit (444+ generic filler, 456+ excuse-as-analysis, 210+ boilerplate), cumulative quality tracking - **Key Changes v3.0:** Claude Opus 4.6 agentic integration, AI-first analysis principle, deprecated code function table, AI title/description generation prompts, analysis-to-article reference linking, cross-reference quality requirements, 2026-04-02 quality audit findings - **Key Changes v2.1:** Document-type analysis focus table, analysis depth levels (L1/L2/L3), anti-pattern gallery, quality gate checklist with scoring rubric - **Key Changes v2.0:** Folder isolation rules, AI-only content mandate, multi-framework depth requirements, advanced anti-pattern detection - **Classification:** Public -- **Next Review:** 2026-07-03 +- **Next Review:** 2026-09-01 diff --git a/analysis/methodologies/political-classification-guide.md b/analysis/methodologies/political-classification-guide.md index 4d0cacd2d..954161b13 100644 --- a/analysis/methodologies/political-classification-guide.md +++ b/analysis/methodologies/political-classification-guide.md @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) -**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-09-01 **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public --- @@ -191,6 +191,22 @@ Key dates that automatically elevate urgency: - **June**: Spring session close โ **ELEVATED** for pending legislation - **September (election year)**: Riksdag election โ **CRITICAL** political environment +### Election 2026 Urgency Boosts + +In the **12 months before September 2026**, apply urgency boost rules for electoral sensitivity: + +| Document Type | Normal Urgency | Election-Year Boost | Boost Condition | +|--------------|:--------------:|:-------------------:|:----------------| +| Budget propositions | ELEVATED | URGENT | Within 6 months of election | +| Coalition agreements / breakdowns | URGENT | CRITICAL | Any time | +| Welfare, healthcare, migration policy | ROUTINE/ELEVATED | +1 tier | Voter salience > HIGH | +| Criminal justice reform | ELEVATED | URGENT | If sentencing/police scope is national | +| Constitutional amendments | ELEVATED | CRITICAL | Any time | +| Government confidence votes | CRITICAL | CRITICAL | No boost needed โ always CRITICAL | +| Ministerial appointments/resignations | ELEVATED | URGENT | Within 3 months of election | + +> **Boost rationale:** Electoral proximity makes politically salient events more consequential for public discourse and editorial routing. Analysts MUST apply the election-year boost and document the rationale. + --- ## ๐ Impact Scope Assessment @@ -550,9 +566,10 @@ export const COMMITTEE_TO_DOMAIN = { **Document Control:** - **Path:** `/analysis/methodologies/political-classification-guide.md` - **ISMS Reference:** [CLASSIFICATION.md](https://github.com/Hack23/ISMS-PUBLIC/blob/main/CLASSIFICATION.md) -- **Version:** 2.2 -- **Advanced Dimensions:** Political Temperature Index, Strategic Significance, Coalition Impact Vector +- **Version:** 2.3 +- **Advanced Dimensions:** Political Temperature Index, Strategic Significance, Coalition Impact Vector, Election 2026 Context +- **Key Changes v2.3:** Added Election 2026 classification context (electoral sensitivity boost rules for pre-election period), 5-level confidence scale integration, enhanced urgency criteria for election-year events - **Key Changes v2.2:** CommitteeโDomain Canonical Mapping (15 committees with domain keys, classification priorities, Mermaid pipeline diagram, code reference) - **MCP Integration:** riksdag-regering-mcp tool mapping, committee-specific baselines - **Classification:** Public -- **Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +- **Next Review:** 2026-09-01 diff --git a/analysis/methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md b/analysis/methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md index 9f9bde3ae..fe89a3bbc 100644 --- a/analysis/methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md +++ b/analysis/methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.1 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) -**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-09-01 **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public --- @@ -86,6 +86,33 @@ graph LR | 10โ14 | **High** | ๐ | Priority assessment; include in news | | 15โ25 | **Critical** | ๐ด | Immediate analysis; breaking news consideration | +### 5-Level Confidence Scale Mapping for Risk Scores + +Risk scores carry a confidence label that reflects the quality and completeness of evidence behind the LรI assessment: + +| Confidence Level | Label | Risk Score Context | Evidence Requirements | +|:----------------:|-------|-------------------|-----------------------| +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Score backed by official voting records or government actions | Multiple official sources, cross-validated, no conflicting evidence | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Score based on official Riksdag API data or documented government positions | โฅ2 official sources, direct evidence | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Score based on multiple news reports or committee proceedings | 3+ sources with moderate agreement; some inferential gaps | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Score based on limited public information or indirect indicators | 2 sources, circumstantial evidence; score may shift significantly | +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Score is speculative; single source or no confirmed evidence | 0โ1 sources; treat score as provisional | + +**Application rule:** Always append the confidence label to every risk score entry. Example: `L=3, I=4, Score=12 [HIGH confidence โ based on JuU committee vote records and ministerial statement]` + +### Election 2026 Risk Proximity Factor + +Apply a **proximity factor** to Electoral risk scores based on distance to the September 2026 election: + +| Months to Election | Proximity Factor | Applied Risk Score | +|:-----------------:|:---------------:|:-----------------:| +| >18 months | ร1.0 | Standard LรI score | +| 12โ18 months | ร1.1 | Score ร 1.1 (rounded up) | +| 6โ12 months | ร1.25 | Score ร 1.25 (rounded up) | +| <6 months | ร1.5 | Score ร 1.5 (rounded up) | + +> **Rationale:** Political risks with direct electoral implications become more consequential as the election approaches. A score of 8 (HIGH) with 5 months to election becomes 12 (HIGHโ border of CRITICAL) after proximity adjustment. + --- ## ๐ค Coalition Stability Risk @@ -586,8 +613,9 @@ This section provides a **complete, date-specific worked example** showing how t **Document Control:** - **Path:** `/analysis/methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md` - **ISMS Reference:** [Risk_Assessment_Methodology.md](https://github.com/Hack23/ISMS-PUBLIC/blob/main/Risk_Assessment_Methodology.md) -- **Version:** 2.1 -- **Advanced Techniques:** Cascading Risk, Bayesian Updating, Risk Interconnection, Scenario Trees, Temporal Analysis Protocol +- **Version:** 2.2 +- **Advanced Techniques:** Cascading Risk, Bayesian Updating, Risk Interconnection, Scenario Trees, Temporal Analysis Protocol, 5-Level Confidence Scale, Election 2026 Risk Mapping +- **Key Changes v2.2:** Added 5-Level Confidence Scale mapping to risk scoring (VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW), Election 2026 risk dimension with electoral proximity factor, updated calibration examples with confidence levels - **Key Changes v2.1:** Temporal Analysis Protocol (re-scoring triggers, staleness rules, evolution template), Bayesian Updating Worked Example (7-day ECHR challenge scenario with date-specific evidence chain) - **Classification:** Public -- **Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +- **Next Review:** 2026-09-01 diff --git a/analysis/methodologies/political-style-guide.md b/analysis/methodologies/political-style-guide.md index 8be140dfc..b01df5825 100644 --- a/analysis/methodologies/political-style-guide.md +++ b/analysis/methodologies/political-style-guide.md @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.1 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) -**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-09-01 **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public --- @@ -1028,6 +1028,50 @@ For each prohibited pattern, this section shows a concrete rewrite demonstrating --- +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Framing Requirements (v2.2) + +> **Mandatory framing standard for all analyses produced within 18 months of September 2026.** + +### Electoral Context in Writing + +When events have electoral relevance, writers MUST apply these framing standards: + +| Writing Context | Requirement | Example | +|----------------|-------------|---------| +| **Article lede** | Include electoral stakes if electoral significance โฅ MODERATE | "The coalition's migration compromise sets up a key electoral battleground ahead of September 2026." | +| **"Why It Matters" section** | Mandatory Election 2026 sentence if electoral significance โฅ HIGH | "This decision will directly shape coalition narratives in the 2026 election campaign." | +| **Forward Indicators** | Include election-related milestones with dates | "Watch: Party conference positioning SepโOct 2025; Budget 2026 proposition Sep 2026" | +| **SWOT analysis** | Electoral dimension required in O and T quadrants | "T: Opposition will use this policy failure as election attack vector" | + +### Election 2026 Framing Vocabulary + +**Approved framing phrases** (use these consistently across languages): +- "ahead of the September 2026 general election" / "infรถr riksdagsvalet i september 2026" +- "electoral positioning" / "valdispositioner" +- "campaign attack vector" / "valkampanjens attackvektor" +- "electoral asset" / "valtillgรฅng" +- "electoral liability" / "valbelastning" +- "coalition stability before 2026" / "koalitionsstabilitet fรถre 2026" + +**Banned electoral framing** (avoid these patterns): +- โ "The election could be affected" โ too vague; specify HOW +- โ "Voters might care about this" โ use polling data instead +- โ "This is politically significant" โ specify which actors, in what way +- โ "Could be an election issue" โ use Electoral Significance classification instead + +### Confidence Requirements for Electoral Claims + +Electoral claims about 2026 require **MEDIUM confidence minimum** (3+ evidence sources). Claims at VERY LOW or LOW confidence must be explicitly labeled and isolated from primary findings. + +| Electoral Claim Type | Minimum Confidence | Evidence Required | +|---------------------|:-----------------:|-------------------| +| Current polling data | HIGH | Specific pollster, date, sample size | +| Party position on electoral strategy | MEDIUM | Party statement, spokesperson quote, or motion | +| Voter segment impact | MEDIUM | SCB demographic data + policy impact analysis | +| Speculative electoral outcome | VERY LOW | Label explicitly; do not assert as finding | + +--- + ## Document Control | Field | Value | @@ -1036,8 +1080,8 @@ For each prohibited pattern, this section shows a concrete rewrite demonstrating | Status | Active | | Owner | Hack23 AB | | Review Cycle | Quarterly | -| Next Review | 2026-06-30 | -| Key Changes v2.2 | Article Title & SEO Standards (v5.0) โ AI-only title generation, banned code-generated patterns | +| Next Review | 2026-09-01 | +| Key Changes v2.2 | Article Title & SEO Standards (v5.0) โ AI-only title generation, banned code-generated patterns; Election 2026 Framing Requirements (electoral context in writing, vocabulary standards, confidence requirements) | | Key Changes v2.1 | BadโGood Rewrite Examples (8 worked examples covering all prohibited pattern categories) | | Key Changes v2.0 | Intelligence depth standards, evidence density requirements, analytical depth indicators | | Related | `scripts/prompts/v2/political-analysis.md`, `scripts/analysis-reader.ts` | diff --git a/analysis/methodologies/political-swot-framework.md b/analysis/methodologies/political-swot-framework.md index 6399340c0..ec52d6dc8 100644 --- a/analysis/methodologies/political-swot-framework.md +++ b/analysis/methodologies/political-swot-framework.md @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) -**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-09-01 **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public --- @@ -121,15 +121,17 @@ Threats are demonstrated by **opposition motions**, **no-confidence signals**, a --- -## ๐ฏ Confidence Level Assignment +## ๐ฏ Confidence Level Assignment (5-Level Scale) ### Assignment Criteria -| Level | Criteria | Example | -|-------|---------|---------| -| **HIGH** | Multiple independent sources corroborate; primary source is official Riksdag document or SCB statistics; source is current (within 90 days) | "Coalition secured 176/349 votes on budget motion 2025/26:FPM45 (verified via voteringsresultat 2025-11-24)" | -| **MEDIUM** | Single primary source confirmed; or multiple secondary sources; or primary source older than 90 days | "Government polling at 38% approval per Novus (2026-02-15); single pollster" | -| **LOW** | Credible but single unverified source; inference from related evidence; source older than 180 days | "Estimated L party dissent based on parliamentary debate tone โ no formal vote yet" | +| Level | Label | Criteria | Example | +|:-----:|-------|---------|---------| +| ๐ฆ 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)" | +| ๐ฉ 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)" | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Single primary source confirmed; or multiple secondary sources; or primary source 90โ180 days old | "Government polling at 38% approval per Novus (2026-02-15); single pollster" | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Credible but single unverified source; inference from related evidence; source 180+ days old | "Estimated L party dissent based on parliamentary debate tone โ no formal vote yet" | +| โฌ 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 @@ -137,13 +139,15 @@ 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. The confidence hierarchy is HIGH โ MEDIUM โ LOW (active). When temporal decay moves a LOW-confidence entry past 90 days, it becomes EXPIRED โ meaning it is no longer active and must be handled per the rules below. An active SWOT analysis contains ONLY entries with confidence HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW. +> **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 @@ -154,7 +158,36 @@ When an entry reaches EXPIRED status: 3. **Archive**: If no new evidence, move entry to "Historical Context" section (informational, not active SWOT) 4. **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 HIGH, MEDIUM, or LOW with a clear evidence trail. +> **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. + +--- + +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 โ Mandatory SWOT Dimension + +> **Added in v2.3 โ Election 2026 is a MANDATORY SWOT dimension for all analyses in 2025โ2026.** + +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: +- **โฅ1 Strength entry** with specific electoral relevance and evidence +- **โฅ1 Weakness entry** with specific electoral vulnerability and attack vector potential +- **โฅ1 Opportunity entry** with timeline relative to election date +- **โฅ1 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. --- @@ -739,9 +772,10 @@ Produce a period-level delta: **Document Control:** - **Path:** `/analysis/methodologies/political-swot-framework.md` - **CIA Reference:** [CIA SWOT.md](https://github.com/Hack23/cia/blob/master/SWOT.md) -- **Version:** 2.2 -- **Advanced Techniques:** Cross-SWOT Interference, TOWS Matrix, Scenario Generation, Power-Interest Mapping, EU Parliament Cross-Reference, SWOT Evolution Tracking +- **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 โ EP group mapping - **Classification:** Public -- **Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +- **Next Review:** 2026-09-01 diff --git a/analysis/methodologies/political-threat-framework.md b/analysis/methodologies/political-threat-framework.md index 241aa6cc5..dd5003ce8 100644 --- a/analysis/methodologies/political-threat-framework.md +++ b/analysis/methodologies/political-threat-framework.md @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 3.1 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) -**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 3.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +**๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-09-01 **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public --- @@ -446,13 +446,14 @@ All identified threat actors are classified on two axes: **Intent** and **Capabi **Document Control:** - **Path:** `/analysis/methodologies/political-threat-framework.md` - **ISMS Reference:** [Threat_Modeling.md](https://github.com/Hack23/ISMS-PUBLIC/blob/main/Threat_Modeling.md) -- **Version:** 3.1 -- **Frameworks:** Attack Trees, Political Kill Chain, Diamond Model, Political Threat Taxonomy, Threat Actor Profiling +- **Version:** 3.2 +- **Frameworks:** Attack Trees, Political Kill Chain, Diamond Model, Political Threat Taxonomy, Threat Actor Profiling, Election 2026 Threat Taxonomy +- **Key Changes v3.2:** Added Election 2026 threat taxonomy (electoral integrity threats, campaign attack vector analysis, coalition stability pre-election), 5-level confidence scale for threat severity assessments - **Key Changes v3.1:** Cross-Methodology Linkage Protocol (SeverityโLikelihood mapping, SWOT Threats vs. dedicated threat analysis scope comparison, synthesis integration protocol with 4-step workflow, integrated dashboard Mermaid diagram) - **Classification:** Public -- **Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +- **Next Review:** 2026-09-01 - + ## Appendix A: Political Threat Category Detailed Definitions diff --git a/analysis/templates/README.md b/analysis/templates/README.md index af81fc000..1ef713fad 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/README.md +++ b/analysis/templates/README.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 4.1 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 4.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ Review Cycle:** Quarterly | **โฐ Next Review:** 2026-06-30 **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public @@ -494,6 +494,29 @@ sequenceDiagram --- +## ๐ v2.3 Common Improvements (All Templates) + +All 8 templates were updated in v2.3 (2026-06-01) with the following cross-cutting improvements: + +### ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Implications Section +Every template now includes an **Election 2026** section that assesses electoral impact, coalition scenarios, voter salience, campaign vulnerability, and policy legacy relative to the September 2026 Swedish general election. This section is **MANDATORY** in all analysis output. + +### ๐ฏ 5-Level Confidence Scale +The binary HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW confidence scale has been replaced with a **5-level confidence scale**: +- โฌ **VERY LOW** โ Speculation only, single unverified source +- ๐ฅ **LOW** โ Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators +- ๐ง **MEDIUM** โ Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration +- ๐ฉ **HIGH** โ Official records, documented data, direct evidence +- ๐ฆ **VERY HIGH** โ Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus + +### ๐ Historical Comparison Tables +`synthesis-summary.md` now includes a **Historical Comparison** section with tables comparing current period metrics to prior periods and year-ago data, plus a precedents table from prior riksmรถten. + +### ๐ Election 2026 Relevance Score +`significance-scoring.md` now includes an **Election 2026 Relevance Score** with proximity bonus, coalition stability multiplier, and voter salience factor to produce election-adjusted significance scores. + +--- + ## ๐ v2.2 Common Improvements (All Templates) All 8 templates were updated in v2.2 (2026-04-06) with the following cross-cutting improvements: diff --git a/analysis/templates/per-file-political-intelligence.md b/analysis/templates/per-file-political-intelligence.md index a22aec505..af17de23b 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/per-file-political-intelligence.md +++ b/analysis/templates/per-file-political-intelligence.md @@ -11,15 +11,15 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public -> **๐ Template Instructions:** This template is for **per-file** analysis. For each data file downloaded via MCP, the AI agent produces one analysis markdown file stored as `{id}-analysis.md` in the workflow's isolated folder. AI MUST read ALL 6 methodology guides before analyzing. +> **๐ Template Instructions:** This template is for **per-file** analysis. For each data file downloaded via MCP, the AI agent produces one analysis markdown file stored as `{id}-analysis.md` in the workflow's isolated folder. AI MUST read `analysis/methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md` (v5.0) before analyzing; consult other methodology guides only when needed for the current analysis step. > > **Output path:** `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/documents/{dok_id}-analysis.md` > @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ ## ๐ฏ Executive Summary -`[REQUIRED: 3โ5 sentences capturing the political significance. Intelligence-level analysis โ not just what happened, but what it means for power dynamics, coalition stability, and democratic accountability. Include confidence label.]` **[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]** +`[REQUIRED: 3โ5 sentences capturing the political significance. Intelligence-level analysis โ not just what happened, but what it means for power dynamics, coalition stability, and democratic accountability. Include confidence label.]` **[VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW]** --- @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ graph LR | **Primary Domain** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. Migration (MIG), Defence (DEF), Economy (ECO), Climate (ENV), Justice (JUS), Health (HEA), Education (EDU), Foreign Affairs (FOR)]` | | **Urgency** | `[REQUIRED: ROUTINE / ELEVATED / URGENT / CRITICAL]` | | **Significance Score** | `[REQUIRED: 0โ10]` | -| **Confidence** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | --- @@ -121,19 +121,19 @@ quadrantChart | Quadrant | Statement | Evidence | Confidence | Impact | |----------|-----------|----------|:----------:|:------:| -| โ Strength | `[If this document strengthens the government position โ specific claim]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | -| โ ๏ธ Weakness | `[If this document exposes a government vulnerability]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | -| ๐ Opportunity | `[If this creates a government opportunity]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | -| ๐ด Threat | `[If this poses a threat to the government]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | +| โ Strength | `[If this document strengthens the government position โ specific claim]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | +| โ ๏ธ Weakness | `[If this document exposes a government vulnerability]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | +| ๐ Opportunity | `[If this creates a government opportunity]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | +| ๐ด Threat | `[If this poses a threat to the government]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | ### Opposition Impact | Quadrant | Statement | Evidence | Confidence | Impact | |----------|-----------|----------|:----------:|:------:| -| โ Strength | `[If this strengthens the opposition]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | -| โ ๏ธ Weakness | `[If this exposes an opposition vulnerability]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | -| ๐ Opportunity | `[If this creates an opposition opportunity]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | -| ๐ด Threat | `[If this poses a threat to the opposition]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | +| โ Strength | `[If this strengthens the opposition]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | +| โ ๏ธ Weakness | `[If this exposes an opposition vulnerability]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | +| ๐ Opportunity | `[If this creates an opposition opportunity]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | +| ๐ด Threat | `[If this poses a threat to the opposition]` | `[dok_id or evidence]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | --- @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ graph TD | Democratic Process | `[1-5]` | `[1-5]` | `[LรI]` | `[REQUIRED: specific risk statement]` | | External / International | `[1-5]` | `[1-5]` | `[LรI]` | `[OPTIONAL: EU, NATO, Nordic impact]` | -**Overall Risk Level:** `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` +**Overall Risk Level:** `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / NEGLIGIBLE]` **Risk-to-SWOT:** Any score โฅ15 โ add as SWOT Threat entry. Any score 10โ14 โ add as SWOT Weakness or Threat. ### Anomaly Flags @@ -282,12 +282,28 @@ graph TD | Stakeholder | Impact Level | Key Assessment | Confidence | |------------|:------------:|----------------|:----------:| -| ๐๏ธ Government | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: How does this affect government's position, agenda, and coalition stability?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| โ๏ธ Opposition | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: How does this create opportunities or challenges for opposition parties?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| ๐ฅ Citizens | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: How does this affect public services, rights, daily life?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| ๐ฐ Economic | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: Fiscal impact, business implications, labour market effects?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| ๐ International | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: EU compliance, Nordic cooperation, foreign relations?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| ๐ฐ Media | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: Newsworthiness, narrative potential, public attention?]` | `[H/M/L]` | +| ๐๏ธ Government | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: How does this affect government's position, agenda, and coalition stability?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| โ๏ธ Opposition | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: How does this create opportunities or challenges for opposition parties?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| ๐ฅ Citizens | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: How does this affect public services, rights, daily life?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| ๐ฐ Economic | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: Fiscal impact, business implications, labour market effects?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| ๐ International | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: EU compliance, Nordic cooperation, foreign relations?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| ๐ฐ Media | `[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE]` | `[REQUIRED: Newsworthiness, narrative potential, public attention?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | + +--- + +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Implications + +| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | +|-----------|------------|----------| +| **Electoral Impact** | `[REQUIRED: How does this document affect September 2026 election positioning?]` | `[Specific evidence from document]` | +| **Coalition Scenarios** | `[REQUIRED: Which coalition configurations benefit/suffer from this policy?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Voter Salience** | `[REQUIRED: Which voter segments are most affected? By how much?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Campaign Vulnerability** | `[REQUIRED: Does this create campaign attack vectors for opposition?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Policy Legacy** | `[REQUIRED: Will this become an electoral asset or liability by Sept 2026?]` | `[Evidence]` | + +**Overall Electoral Significance**: `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]` + +**Most Likely Narrative**: `[REQUIRED: How will this be framed in the 2026 campaign?]` --- @@ -336,7 +352,7 @@ graph TD | **Source Completeness** | `[REQUIRED: Full text / Metadata only / Summary only]` | | **Evidence Density** | `[REQUIRED: N evidence points cited]` | | **Temporal Currency** | `[REQUIRED: Current / Recent (30d) / Dated (90d) / Stale (180d+)]` | -| **Analytical Confidence** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Analytical Confidence** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | --- @@ -370,6 +386,8 @@ graph TD - [ ] **MCP Data Files listed:** All consulted data files recorded with source MCP tool and freshness - [ ] **No placeholder text remaining:** Search for `[REQUIRED` โ zero hits expected - [ ] **No anti-pattern content:** No "No strengths identified", no generic boilerplate, no title-only restatements +- [ ] **Election 2026 Implications present:** All 5 dimensions assessed (Electoral Impact, Coalition Scenarios, Voter Salience, Campaign Vulnerability, Policy Legacy) +- [ ] **5-level confidence applied:** Confidence fields use VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW scale - [ ] **Cross-references linked:** Related documents and same-day cross-references populated --- @@ -377,8 +395,9 @@ graph TD **Document Control:** - **Template Path:** `/analysis/templates/per-file-political-intelligence.md` - **Output Path:** `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/documents/{dok_id}-analysis.md` -- **Version:** 2.2 -- **Effective Date:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +- **Version:** 2.3 +- **Effective Date:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +- **Key Changes v2.3:** Added Election 2026 Implications section, 5-level confidence scale (VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW) replacing binary H/M/L, improved differentiated per-document insights - **Frameworks:** SWOT, Risk, Attack Trees, Kill Chain, Diamond Model, Stakeholder - **Framework References:** [SWOT.md](../../SWOT.md), [THREAT_MODEL.md](../../THREAT_MODEL.md) - **Methodology:** [ai-driven-analysis-guide.md](../methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md) diff --git a/analysis/templates/political-classification.md b/analysis/templates/political-classification.md index c34708566..aba7b2234 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/political-classification.md +++ b/analysis/templates/political-classification.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public > **๐ Template Instructions:** Copy to `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/` and save as `classification-results.md` in the workflow's own folder (never overwrite another workflow's files). Replace all `[REQUIRED]` and `[OPTIONAL]` placeholders with actual values. Include Political Temperature Index and Coalition Impact Vector assessments. @@ -204,9 +204,9 @@ Significance Score: [REQUIRED: see significance-scoring.md, 0โ10 composite] `[REQUIRED: Explain why each classification dimension was assigned its value. Reference specific evidence from the source document.]` ### Confidence Assessment -- **Source Quality:** `[HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` โ `[reason]` -- **Information Completeness:** `[HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` โ `[reason]` -- **Overall Confidence:** `[HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` +- **Source Quality:** `[VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` โ `[reason]` +- **Information Completeness:** `[VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` โ `[reason]` +- **Overall Confidence:** `[VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` ### Recommended Action - [ ] ๐ฐ **Publish** โ Include in next news cycle (significance โฅ 6) @@ -297,6 +297,34 @@ Significance Score: [REQUIRED: see significance-scoring.md, 0โ10 composite] --- +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Classification Context + +> *How does this classified event's sensitivity, urgency, and scope translate into electoral relevance?* + +| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | +|-----------|------------|----------| +| **Electoral Impact** | `[REQUIRED: How does this event affect September 2026 election positioning?]` | `[Specific evidence]` | +| **Coalition Scenarios** | `[REQUIRED: Which coalition configurations benefit/suffer from this classification?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Voter Salience** | `[REQUIRED: Is this event type salient for voter blocs heading into 2026?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Campaign Vulnerability** | `[REQUIRED: Does this event create campaign attack vectors given its sensitivity level?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Policy Legacy** | `[REQUIRED: Will this event's classification (SENSITIVE/RESTRICTED) affect electoral discourse?]` | `[Evidence]` | + +**Overall Electoral Significance**: `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]` + +--- + +## ๐ฏ Confidence Scale Reference (5-Level) + +| Level | Label | Criteria | Evidence Threshold | +|-------|-------|----------|--------------------| +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Speculation only, single unverified source | 0โ1 sources, no corroboration | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators | 2 sources, indirect evidence | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration | 3+ sources, moderate agreement | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Official records, documented data, direct evidence | Official docs, voting records, committee reports | +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus | Multiple official sources, cross-validated | + +--- + ## ๐ Cross-References > *Link to sibling analysis files and same-day analysis from other article types.* @@ -324,6 +352,8 @@ Significance Score: [REQUIRED: see significance-scoring.md, 0โ10 composite] - [ ] **Confidence Decay assessed:** Classification age calculated and re-evaluation status noted - [ ] **MCP Data Provenance:** All data sources listed with timestamps - [ ] **No placeholder text remaining:** Search for `[REQUIRED` โ zero hits expected +- [ ] **Election 2026 Classification Context present:** All 5 dimensions assessed with overall electoral significance +- [ ] **5-level confidence applied:** Source Quality, Information Completeness, Overall Confidence use VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW - [ ] **Named actors cited:** โฅ1 named politician/party in classification rationale - [ ] **Cross-references linked:** At least 1 sibling analysis file referenced diff --git a/analysis/templates/risk-assessment.md b/analysis/templates/risk-assessment.md index d9642a10a..73a14697d 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/risk-assessment.md +++ b/analysis/templates/risk-assessment.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public > **๐ Template Instructions:** Copy to `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/`. Save as `risk-assessment.md` in the workflow's own folder (never overwrite another workflow's files). Scores use Likelihood ร Impact methodology from [methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md](../methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md). @@ -47,6 +47,34 @@ --- +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Risk Dimensions + +| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | +|-----------|------------|----------| +| **Electoral Impact** | `[REQUIRED: How do these risks affect September 2026 election positioning?]` | `[Specific evidence]` | +| **Coalition Scenarios** | `[REQUIRED: Which coalition configurations are at risk before 2026 election?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Voter Salience** | `[REQUIRED: Which voter segments are most affected by these risks?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Campaign Vulnerability** | `[REQUIRED: Do these risks create campaign attack vectors for opposition?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Policy Legacy** | `[REQUIRED: Will these risk materializations become electoral liabilities?]` | `[Evidence]` | + +**Overall Electoral Significance**: `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]` + +**Most Likely Electoral Narrative**: `[REQUIRED: How will opposition frame these risks in the 2026 campaign?]` + +--- + +## ๐ฏ Confidence Scale (5-Level) + +| Level | Label | Criteria | Evidence Threshold | +|-------|-------|----------|--------------------| +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Speculation only, single unverified source | 0โ1 sources, no corroboration | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators | 2 sources, indirect evidence | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration | 3+ sources, moderate agreement | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Official records, documented data, direct evidence | Official docs, voting records, committee reports | +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus | Multiple official sources, cross-validated | + +--- + ## ๐๏ธ Risk Inventory Risk Score = Likelihood (1โ5) ร Impact (1โ5). See scoring guide in [political-risk-methodology.md](../methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md). @@ -199,7 +227,7 @@ timeline | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[tier]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | **Pre-election Fragility Index:** `[REQUIRED: LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH]` -**Assessment Confidence:** `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` +**Assessment Confidence:** `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` --- @@ -330,7 +358,7 @@ flowchart TD **Previous Assessment Reference:** `[REQUIRED: path to previous risk-assessment.md or "N/A โ first assessment"]` **Overall Risk Trend:** `[REQUIRED: โ Escalating / โ Stable / โ De-escalating]` -**Trend Confidence:** `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` +**Trend Confidence:** `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` --- @@ -393,16 +421,19 @@ graph LR - [ ] **MCP Data Provenance:** All data sources listed with timestamps; every factual claim traceable - [ ] **No placeholder text remaining:** Search for `[REQUIRED` โ zero hits expected - [ ] **Cross-references linked:** At least 2 sibling analysis files referenced +- [ ] **Election 2026 Risk Dimensions present:** All 5 dimensions assessed with overall electoral significance rating +- [ ] **5-level confidence applied:** Assessment Confidence and Trend Confidence use VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW scale - [ ] **Named actors:** โฅ2 named politicians/parties with party affiliations cited -- [ ] **Confidence labels:** Every claim has H/M/L confidence or numeric severity +- [ ] **Confidence labels:** Every claim has VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW confidence or numeric severity --- **Document Control:** - **Template Path:** `/analysis/templates/risk-assessment.md` - **Framework Reference:** [methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md](../methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md) -- **Version:** 2.2 -- **Effective Date:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +- **Version:** 2.3 +- **Effective Date:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +- **Key Changes v2.3:** Added Election 2026 Risk Dimensions section, 5-level confidence scale (VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW), updated quality checklist - **Advanced Sections:** Cascading Risk, Risk Interconnection, Scenario Outlook, Previous Assessment Comparison, MCP Data Provenance - **ISMS Alignment:** ISO 27001:2022 A.5.7 (Threat Intelligence), NIST CSF 2.0 ID.RA (Risk Assessment) - **Classification:** Public diff --git a/analysis/templates/significance-scoring.md b/analysis/templates/significance-scoring.md index 5d1c2c0c2..fdbb97304 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/significance-scoring.md +++ b/analysis/templates/significance-scoring.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public > **๐ Template Instructions:** Copy to `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/` and save as `significance-scoring.md` in the workflow's own folder (never overwrite another workflow's files). The significance scorer TypeScript implementation is at `scripts/analysis-framework/significance-scorer.ts` โ this provides automated numeric scores only. AI must provide the **analytical rationale** explaining why documents score as they do. @@ -294,6 +294,38 @@ These examples provide anchor points for consistent scoring across workflows: --- +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Relevance Score + +> *Adjust significance scoring context based on proximity to the September 2026 election, using the same time-banded scale for every assessment.* + +| Dimension | Score Adjustment | Rationale | +|-----------|:---------------:|-----------| +| **Electoral proximity bonus** | `[REQUIRED: +0.0 to +2.0 โ scale by time to Sept 2026 election: >12 months = +0.0 to +0.5; 6โ12 months = +0.5 to +1.0; <6 months = +1.0 to +2.0]` | `[Evidence for time-sensitivity]` | +| **Coalition stability multiplier** | `[REQUIRED: ร1.0 to ร1.5 โ documents that directly affect coalition stability before elections]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Voter salience factor** | `[REQUIRED: +0.0 to +1.0 โ issues with high voter salience score higher in pre-election period]` | `[Evidence]` | + +**Election-Adjusted Significance Score:** `[REQUIRED: base composite + electoral proximity bonus, capped at 10.0]` `/10` + +**Election 2026 Relevance Classification:** +- [ ] ๐ด **DECISIVE** โ This event will directly affect 2026 election outcome (adjusted score โฅ 9.0) +- [ ] ๐ **SIGNIFICANT** โ Contributes to pre-election narrative (adjusted score 7.0โ8.9) +- [ ] ๐ก **MODERATE** โ Peripheral electoral relevance (adjusted score 5.0โ6.9) +- [ ] ๐ข **MARGINAL** โ Minimal electoral impact (adjusted score < 5.0) + +--- + +## ๐ฏ Confidence Scale Reference (5-Level) + +| Level | Label | Criteria | Evidence Threshold | +|-------|-------|----------|--------------------| +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Speculation only, single unverified source | 0โ1 sources, no corroboration | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators | 2 sources, indirect evidence | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration | 3+ sources, moderate agreement | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Official records, documented data, direct evidence | Official docs, voting records, committee reports | +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus | Multiple official sources, cross-validated | + +--- + ## ๐ Cross-References > *Link to sibling analysis files and same-day analysis from other article types.* @@ -317,6 +349,8 @@ These examples provide anchor points for consistent scoring across workflows: - [ ] **Score Profile Mermaid rendered:** Decision gate diagram has actual scores (no `[#]` placeholders) - [ ] **Publication Decision assigned:** Archive/Monitor/Publish/Priority/Breaking with rationale - [ ] **Relative Scoring filled:** Same-type comparison with average and deviation calculated +- [ ] **Election 2026 Relevance Score present:** Electoral proximity bonus, coalition multiplier, voter salience factor assessed +- [ ] **5-level confidence scale available:** Reference table present for consistent confidence labeling - [ ] **Score Reconciliation checked:** If automated score diverges >3 points, higher score used and flagged - [ ] **MCP Data Files listed:** All consulted data files with timestamps - [ ] **No placeholder text remaining:** Search for `[REQUIRED` โ zero hits expected @@ -326,11 +360,12 @@ These examples provide anchor points for consistent scoring across workflows: **Document Control:** - **Template Path:** `/analysis/templates/significance-scoring.md` -- **Version:** 2.2 -- **Effective Date:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +- **Version:** 2.3 +- **Effective Date:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +- **Key Changes v2.3:** Added Election 2026 Relevance Score section, time-banded electoral proximity bonus (+0.0 to +2.0), coalition stability multiplier, voter salience factor - **Scorer Implementation:** `scripts/analysis-framework/significance-scorer.ts` - **Advanced Sections:** Relative Scoring, Same-Type Comparison - **ISMS Alignment:** ISO 27001:2022 A.5.7 (Threat Intelligence), NIST CSF 2.0 ID.RA (Risk Assessment) - **Classification:** Public - **Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) -- **Next Review:** 2026-06-30 +- **Next Review:** 2026-09-01 diff --git a/analysis/templates/stakeholder-impact.md b/analysis/templates/stakeholder-impact.md index c0a31a89a..b93a6efb2 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/stakeholder-impact.md +++ b/analysis/templates/stakeholder-impact.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public > **๐ Template Instructions:** Copy to `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/` and save as `stakeholder-impact.md` in the workflow's own folder (never overwrite another workflow's files). Complete the context block first, then assess each stakeholder group with specific evidence. AI must provide genuine impact analysis with named actors and dok_id citations โ not generic "may affect business" prose. @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ graph TD | **Affected Population** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "All 10.5M residents", "Pensioners 65+", "Urban renters", "Asylum seekers"]` | | **Impact Type** | `[REQUIRED: FINANCIAL / LEGAL / SOCIAL / HEALTH / EDUCATIONAL / COMBINATION]` | | **Evidence Sources** | `[REQUIRED: dok_id(s), SCB statistics ref, or budget document]` | -| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | **Citizen Impact Narrative:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ4 sentences explaining how ordinary citizens experience this change. Be specific about amounts (SEK), eligibility criteria, timelines, and regional variation if applicable. Reference the scripts/analysis-framework/lenses/citizen.ts perspective framework.]` @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ graph TD | **Primary Affected Parties** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "M (primary), SD (secondary), KD (minor)"]` | | **Coalition Cohesion Effect** | `[REQUIRED: STRENGTHENS / NEUTRAL / STRAINS / FRACTURES]` | | **Evidence Sources** | `[REQUIRED: dok_id, debate ref, or interpellation]` | -| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | **Government Coalition Impact Narrative:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ3 sentences. Reference scripts/analysis-framework/lenses/government.ts.]` @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ graph TD | **Primary Affected Parties** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "S (gains credibility), V (opposition opportunity), MP (marginalised)"]` | | **Electoral Positioning Effect** | `[REQUIRED: POSITIVE / NEUTRAL / NEGATIVE โ from opposition perspective]` | | **Evidence Sources** | `[REQUIRED: anfรถranden refs or motion dok_ids]` | -| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | **Opposition Impact Narrative:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ3 sentences. Reference scripts/analysis-framework/lenses/opposition.ts.]` @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ graph TD | **Economic Impact Type** | `[REQUIRED: COMPLIANCE COST / MARKET OPPORTUNITY / REGULATORY BURDEN / TAX CHANGE / OTHER]` | | **Estimated Financial Impact** | `[OPTIONAL: e.g. "ยฑX BSEK annually per Finansdepartementet estimate"]` | | **Evidence Sources** | `[REQUIRED: proposition dok_id, Riksbank ref, or SOU]` | -| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | **Business Sector Impact Narrative:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ3 sentences. Reference scripts/analysis-framework/lenses/economic.ts.]` @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ graph TD | **Most Affected Organisations** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "LO, TCO (labour)", "Rรคdda Barnen (welfare)", "Greenpeace (environment)"]` | | **Civil Society Response** | `[REQUIRED: SUPPORTIVE / NEUTRAL / OPPOSED / DIVIDED]` | | **Evidence Sources** | `[REQUIRED: remissvar refs, consultation documents, or media statements]` | -| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | **Civil Society Impact Narrative:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ3 sentences.]` @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ graph TD | **Affected Relationships** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "EU Commission (sanctions risk)", "NATO allies", "Nordic Council"]` | | **Treaty/Directive Compliance** | `[REQUIRED: COMPLIANT / AT RISK / NON-COMPLIANT / UNCERTAIN]` | | **Evidence Sources** | `[REQUIRED: EU directive refs, international agreement dok_ids]` | -| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | **International Impact Narrative:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ3 sentences. Reference scripts/analysis-framework/lenses/international.ts.]` @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ _Note: In the Extended Impact Summary Matrix, stakeholder groups may appear in a | **Constitutional Compliance** | `[REQUIRED: COMPLIANT / CONSTITUTIONAL RISK / UNDER REVIEW / UNCERTAIN]` | | **Legal Precedent Impact** | `[REQUIRED: NONE / MINOR ADJUSTMENT / SIGNIFICANT SHIFT / NEW PRECEDENT]` | | **Evidence Sources** | `[REQUIRED: Lagrรฅdet remiss, SOU dok_id, or constitutional analysis]` | -| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | **Judiciary Impact Narrative:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ3 sentences. Consider Lagrรฅdet opinions, constitutional implications under Regeringsformen (RF), court capacity, and effects on rule-of-law guarantees. Note any EU Charter of Fundamental Rights interactions.]` @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ _Note: In the Extended Impact Summary Matrix, stakeholder groups may appear in a | **Framing Dynamics** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "Government frames as security; opposition as civil liberties threat"]` | | **Key Media Actors** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "SVT Nyheter, DN ledare, Expressen, SR Ekot"]` | | **Evidence Sources** | `[REQUIRED: media monitoring refs, press conference dok_ids, or debate transcripts]` | -| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Confidence Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | **Media Impact Narrative:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ3 sentences. Reference scripts/analysis-framework/lenses/media.ts. Describe the anticipated media cycle, competing narratives, and whether the issue will sustain public attention or be displaced.]` @@ -378,6 +378,43 @@ quadrantChart --- +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Stakeholder Effects + +| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | +|-----------|------------|----------| +| **Electoral Impact** | `[REQUIRED: How do stakeholder dynamics affect September 2026 election positioning?]` | `[Specific evidence]` | +| **Coalition Scenarios** | `[REQUIRED: Which stakeholder coalitions benefit/suffer from current policies?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Voter Salience** | `[REQUIRED: Which stakeholder groups translate most directly into voter blocs?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Campaign Vulnerability** | `[REQUIRED: Which stakeholder harms create campaign attack vectors for opposition?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Policy Legacy** | `[REQUIRED: Which stakeholder wins/losses will define the electoral narrative?]` | `[Evidence]` | + +**Overall Electoral Significance**: `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]` + +**Most Likely Electoral Narrative**: `[REQUIRED: How will stakeholder impacts be framed in the 2026 campaign?]` + +### Stakeholder Voting Bloc Alignment (Election 2026) + +| Stakeholder Group | Size (est. voters) | Current Policy Disposition | Swing Potential | Electoral Risk | +|------------------|--------------------|---------------------------|:---------------:|:-------------:| +| Citizens โ Welfare-dependent | `[OPTIONAL: e.g. ~1.5M]` | `[OPTIONAL: favourable/neutral/unfavourable]` | `[HIGH/MED/LOW]` | `[tier]` | +| Citizens โ Working age | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[HIGH/MED/LOW]` | `[tier]` | +| Business / Industry | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[HIGH/MED/LOW]` | `[tier]` | +| Civil Society orgs | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[HIGH/MED/LOW]` | `[tier]` | + +--- + +## ๐ฏ Confidence Scale Reference (5-Level) + +| Level | Label | Criteria | Evidence Threshold | +|-------|-------|----------|--------------------| +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Speculation only, single unverified source | 0โ1 sources, no corroboration | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators | 2 sources, indirect evidence | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration | 3+ sources, moderate agreement | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Official records, documented data, direct evidence | Official docs, voting records, committee reports | +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus | Multiple official sources, cross-validated | + +--- + ## ๐ Cross-References > *Link to sibling analysis files and same-day analysis from other article types.* @@ -398,6 +435,8 @@ quadrantChart - [ ] **Assessment Context complete:** All metadata fields filled (ID, date, subject, dok_id, stage, producer, overall impact) - [ ] **All 8 stakeholder groups assessed:** Citizens, Government, Opposition, Business, Civil Society, International, Judiciary, Media - [ ] **Specific evidence on every group:** No generic "may affect" prose โ every impact claims specific actors, mechanisms, and evidence +- [ ] **Election 2026 Stakeholder Effects present:** All 5 dimensions assessed with Voting Bloc Alignment table +- [ ] **5-level confidence applied:** Stakeholder impact confidence uses the full scale where applicable - [ ] **Named actors cited:** โฅ3 named politicians/parties/organisations with specific roles - [ ] **Impact Summary Matrix filled:** All 8 rows in Extended Impact Summary Matrix have levels, timelines, confidence - [ ] **Inter-Stakeholder Tensions identified:** โฅ2 tension pairs with mechanisms and editorial relevance @@ -413,8 +452,9 @@ quadrantChart **Document Control:** - **Template Path:** `/analysis/templates/stakeholder-impact.md` -- **Version:** 2.2 -- **Effective Date:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +- **Version:** 2.3 +- **Effective Date:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +- **Key Changes v2.3:** Added Election 2026 Stakeholder Effects section with Voting Bloc Alignment table, 5-level confidence scale reference, updated quality checklist - **Lens References:** `scripts/analysis-framework/lenses/` (citizen, economic, government, international, media, opposition) - **Framework Reference:** [methodologies/political-style-guide.md](../methodologies/political-style-guide.md) - **Advanced Sections:** Position Change Tracking, Power-Interest Grid diff --git a/analysis/templates/swot-analysis.md b/analysis/templates/swot-analysis.md index a9bb6734f..47a062a5b 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/swot-analysis.md +++ b/analysis/templates/swot-analysis.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public > **๐ Template Instructions:** Copy to `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/`. Save as `swot-analysis.md` in the workflow's own folder (never overwrite another workflow's files). Each SWOT entry requires a dok_id or named evidence source โ opinion-only entries are prohibited. See [methodologies/political-swot-framework.md](../methodologies/political-swot-framework.md). @@ -59,10 +59,10 @@ Each entry requires: Statement + Evidence (dok_id) + Confidence + Impact + Entry | # | Strength Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| S1 | `[REQUIRED: specific, verifiable strength โ e.g. "Coalition maintains working Riksdag majority of 176 seats through SD support agreement"]` | `[REQUIRED: dok_id or vote record]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| S2 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| S3 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| S4 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| S1 | `[REQUIRED: specific, verifiable strength โ e.g. "Coalition maintains working Riksdag majority of 176 seats through SD support agreement"]` | `[REQUIRED: dok_id or vote record]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| S2 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| S3 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| S4 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | **Coalition Strength Summary:** `[REQUIRED: 1โ2 sentences]` @@ -72,9 +72,9 @@ Each entry requires: Statement + Evidence (dok_id) + Confidence + Impact + Entry | # | Weakness Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| W1 | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "Internal disagreement on migration targets between M and L weakens policy coherence"]` | `[REQUIRED: dok_id or debate reference]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| W2 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| W3 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| W1 | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "Internal disagreement on migration targets between M and L weakens policy coherence"]` | `[REQUIRED: dok_id or debate reference]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| W2 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| W3 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | **Coalition Weakness Summary:** `[REQUIRED: 1โ2 sentences]` @@ -84,9 +84,9 @@ Each entry requires: Statement + Evidence (dok_id) + Confidence + Impact + Entry | # | Opportunity Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|----------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| O1 | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "Improving macroeconomic indicators provide window for tax reform legislation"]` | `[REQUIRED: SCB data or budget dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| O2 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| O3 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| O1 | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "Improving macroeconomic indicators provide window for tax reform legislation"]` | `[REQUIRED: SCB data or budget dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| O2 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| O3 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | **Coalition Opportunity Summary:** `[REQUIRED: 1โ2 sentences]` @@ -96,9 +96,9 @@ Each entry requires: Statement + Evidence (dok_id) + Confidence + Impact + Entry | # | Threat Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-----------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| T1 | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "No-confidence motion risk if SD withdraws budget support over crime legislation stall"]` | `[REQUIRED: interpellation or debate ref]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| T2 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| T3 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| T1 | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "No-confidence motion risk if SD withdraws budget support over crime legislation stall"]` | `[REQUIRED: interpellation or debate ref]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| T2 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| T3 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | **Coalition Threat Summary:** `[REQUIRED: 1โ2 sentences]` @@ -114,27 +114,27 @@ Each entry requires: Statement + Evidence (dok_id) + Confidence + Impact + Entry | # | Strength Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| S1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| S2 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| S1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| S2 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | ### โ ๏ธ Weaknesses โ Opposition | # | Weakness Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| W1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| W2 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| W1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| W2 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | ### ๐ Opportunities โ Opposition | # | Opportunity Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|----------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| O1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| O1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | ### ๐ด Threats โ Opposition | # | Threat Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-----------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| T1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| T1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | --- @@ -146,26 +146,26 @@ Each entry requires: Statement + Evidence (dok_id) + Confidence + Impact + Entry | # | Strength Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| S1 | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "Sweden meets 2025 renewable energy target; supporting legislation fully enacted (prop 2024/25:XX)"]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | -| S2 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| S1 | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "Sweden meets 2025 renewable energy target; supporting legislation fully enacted (prop 2024/25:XX)"]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| S2 | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | ### โ ๏ธ Weaknesses in Domain | # | Weakness Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| W1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| W1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | ### ๐ Opportunities in Domain | # | Opportunity Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|----------------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| O1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| O1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | ### ๐ด Threats to Domain | # | Threat Statement | Evidence (dok_id) | Confidence | Impact | Entry Date | |---|-----------------|-------------------|:----------:|:------:|:----------:| -| T1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `H/M/L` | `H/M/L` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | +| T1 | `[REQUIRED]` | `[dok_id]` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `VH/H/M/L/VL` | `YYYY-MM-DD` | --- @@ -290,10 +290,10 @@ graph TD | SWOT Quadrant | Primary MCP Tools | Evidence Items | Confidence | |:-------------:|------------------|:--------------:|:----------:| -| **Strengths** | `[e.g. search_voteringar, get_betankanden]` | `[#]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| **Weaknesses** | `[e.g. search_anforanden, search_dokument]` | `[#]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| **Opportunities** | `[e.g. search_regering, get_calendar_events]` | `[#]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| **Threats** | `[e.g. search_voteringar, search_dokument_fulltext]` | `[#]` | `[H/M/L]` | +| **Strengths** | `[e.g. search_voteringar, get_betankanden]` | `[#]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| **Weaknesses** | `[e.g. search_anforanden, search_dokument]` | `[#]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| **Opportunities** | `[e.g. search_regering, get_calendar_events]` | `[#]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| **Threats** | `[e.g. search_voteringar, search_dokument_fulltext]` | `[#]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | > **๐ Note:** Confidence follows the temporal decay rule from [political-swot-framework.md](../methodologies/political-swot-framework.md): HIGH (0โ30d, remains HIGH at 30d)โMEDIUM (90d)โLOW (180d)โEXPIRED. All files listed MUST exist at the stated paths; mark transient data as `(transient โ not cached)`. @@ -328,6 +328,45 @@ graph TD --- +## ๐ณ๏ธ Section 9: Election 2026 SWOT Dimension + +> *How do the SWOT findings translate into electoral positioning for September 2026?* + +| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | +|-----------|------------|----------| +| **Electoral Impact** | `[REQUIRED: How do these SWOT findings affect September 2026 election positioning?]` | `[Specific evidence]` | +| **Coalition Scenarios** | `[REQUIRED: Which coalition configurations benefit/suffer from the current SWOT balance?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Voter Salience** | `[REQUIRED: Which voter segments are most affected by these SWOT dynamics?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Campaign Vulnerability** | `[REQUIRED: Which SWOT weaknesses/threats create campaign attack vectors?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Policy Legacy** | `[REQUIRED: Which SWOT strengths/opportunities will become electoral assets?]` | `[Evidence]` | + +**Overall Electoral Significance**: `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]` + +**Most Likely Electoral Narrative**: `[REQUIRED: How will these SWOT findings be framed in the 2026 campaign?]` + +### Electoral SWOT Balance + +| Quadrant | Electoral Asset/Liability | Impact on 2026 Campaign | +|----------|--------------------------|------------------------| +| โ Strengths | `[REQUIRED: Which strengths are electoral assets?]` | `[Positive/negative framing potential]` | +| โ ๏ธ Weaknesses | `[REQUIRED: Which weaknesses are electoral liabilities?]` | `[Attack vector potential]` | +| ๐ Opportunities | `[REQUIRED: Which opportunities can be turned into campaign wins?]` | `[Timing relative to Sept 2026]` | +| ๐ด Threats | `[REQUIRED: Which threats could damage electoral standing?]` | `[Risk level for 2026 campaign]` | + +--- + +## ๐ฏ Confidence Scale Reference (5-Level) + +| Level | Label | Criteria | Evidence Threshold | +|-------|-------|----------|--------------------| +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Speculation only, single unverified source | 0โ1 sources, no corroboration | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators | 2 sources, indirect evidence | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration | 3+ sources, moderate agreement | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Official records, documented data, direct evidence | Official docs, voting records, committee reports | +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus | Multiple official sources, cross-validated | + +--- + ## ๐ Cross-References > *Link to sibling analysis files and same-day analysis from other article types for contextual completeness.* @@ -348,7 +387,7 @@ graph TD - [ ] **SWOT Context complete:** All metadata fields filled including temporal window and validity window - [ ] **Minimum 2 entries per quadrant:** Government Coalition SWOT has โฅ2 Strengths, โฅ2 Weaknesses, โฅ1 Opportunity, โฅ1 Threat - [ ] **Evidence on every entry:** No SWOT entry without a dok_id or named evidence source -- [ ] **Confidence labels present:** Every entry has H/M/L confidence and impact ratings +- [ ] **Confidence labels present:** Every entry has VH/H/M/L/VL confidence and impact ratings - [ ] **Entry dates populated:** Temporal decay tracking enabled for all entries - [ ] **Mermaid SWOT diagram rendered:** Quadrant Mapping diagram has actual findings (no placeholders) - [ ] **TOWS Matrix complete:** At least SO and WO strategies filled with specific actions @@ -357,6 +396,8 @@ graph TD - [ ] **Forward Indicators present:** โฅ2 scenarios with probabilities and SWOT element references - [ ] **MCP Data Provenance:** All data sources listed; every entry traceable to MCP tool call - [ ] **No placeholder text remaining:** Search for `[REQUIRED` โ zero hits expected +- [ ] **Election 2026 SWOT Dimension present:** Section 9 filled with all 5 dimensions and electoral SWOT balance table +- [ ] **5-level confidence applied:** SWOT entry Confidence columns use the full scale where appropriate - [ ] **Named actors:** โฅ2 named politicians/parties with party affiliations cited - [ ] **Cross-references linked:** At least 2 sibling analysis files referenced @@ -365,8 +406,9 @@ graph TD **Document Control:** - **Template Path:** `/analysis/templates/swot-analysis.md` - **Framework Reference:** [SWOT.md](../../SWOT.md), [methodologies/political-swot-framework.md](../methodologies/political-swot-framework.md) -- **Version:** 2.2 -- **Effective Date:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +- **Version:** 2.3 +- **Effective Date:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +- **Key Changes v2.3:** Added Election 2026 SWOT Dimension section (Section 9), Electoral SWOT Balance table, 5-level confidence scale reference, updated quality checklist - **Advanced Sections:** Cross-SWOT Interference, TOWS Matrix, SWOT Delta, Forward Indicators & Scenario Outlook, MCP Data Provenance - **ISMS Alignment:** ISO 27001:2022 A.5.7 (Threat Intelligence), NIST CSF 2.0 ID.RA (Risk Assessment) - **Classification:** Public diff --git a/analysis/templates/synthesis-summary.md b/analysis/templates/synthesis-summary.md index 94c20525b..626874441 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/synthesis-summary.md +++ b/analysis/templates/synthesis-summary.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 2.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public > **๐ Template Instructions:** Copy to `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/` and save as `synthesis-summary.md` in the workflow's own folder. This file synthesizes per-file analyses into an integrated intelligence picture. AI reads all per-file analyses and produces genuine synthesis โ not a mechanical concatenation of summaries. @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ | **Documents Analyzed** | `[REQUIRED: N]` | | **Analysis Period** | `[REQUIRED: e.g. "2026-03-28 00:00โ18:00 UTC"]` | | **Produced By** | `[REQUIRED: workflow name]` | -| **Overall Confidence** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | +| **Overall Confidence** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | --- @@ -176,12 +176,12 @@ graph LR | Stakeholder | Impact | Direction | Key Driver | |------------|:------:|:---------:|------------| -| ๐๏ธ Citizens | `[H/M/L/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | -| ๐๏ธ Government | `[H/M/L/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | -| ๐ณ๏ธ Opposition | `[H/M/L/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | -| ๐ญ Business | `[H/M/L/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | -| ๐ค Civil Society | `[H/M/L/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | -| ๐ International | `[H/M/L/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | +| ๐๏ธ Citizens | `[VH/H/M/L/VL/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | +| ๐๏ธ Government | `[VH/H/M/L/VL/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | +| ๐ณ๏ธ Opposition | `[VH/H/M/L/VL/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | +| ๐ญ Business | `[VH/H/M/L/VL/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | +| ๐ค Civil Society | `[VH/H/M/L/VL/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | +| ๐ International | `[VH/H/M/L/VL/N]` | `[positive/negative/neutral]` | `[REQUIRED]` | --- @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ graph LR **Primary Narrative Angle:** `[REQUIRED: 1 sentence โ the article headline thesis]` **Secondary Angles:** `[OPTIONAL: 1โ2 alternative narrative framings]` -**Confidence:** `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` +**Confidence:** `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` ### ๐ฐ AI-Recommended Article Metadata (MANDATORY โ v5.0) @@ -227,6 +227,45 @@ graph LR --- +## ๐ Historical Comparison + +> **AI Instructions:** Compare current period findings with equivalent periods from previous riksmรถten. This establishes trend context and prevents over-indexing on routine developments. + +| Metric | Current Period | Prior Period (3 months ago) | Year Ago | Trend | +|--------|---------------|----------------------------|----------|-------| +| **Overall Risk Level** | `[REQUIRED]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[โ/โ/โ]` | +| **Coalition Stability** | `[REQUIRED]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[โ/โ/โ]` | +| **Legislative Throughput** | `[REQUIRED: N documents]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[โ/โ/โ]` | +| **Opposition Activity Level** | `[REQUIRED: VH/H/M/L/VL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[โ/โ/โ]` | +| **Average Significance Score** | `[REQUIRED: #.#/10]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[OPTIONAL]` | `[โ/โ/โ]` | + +**Historical Context:** `[REQUIRED: 2โ3 sentences placing this period in historical context. Is this an unusually active/risky period? Compare to equivalent pre-election periods in 2021/22.]` + +**Precedents from Prior Riksmรถten:** + +| Precedent | Riksmรถte | Outcome | Relevance to Current Period | +|-----------|----------|---------|----------------------------| +| `[OPTIONAL: similar political situation]` | `[e.g. 2021/22]` | `[What happened]` | `[Why it matters now]` | +| `[OPTIONAL]` | `[year]` | `[outcome]` | `[relevance]` | + +--- + +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Implications + +| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | +|-----------|------------|----------| +| **Electoral Impact** | `[REQUIRED: How does this affect September 2026 election positioning?]` | `[Specific evidence]` | +| **Coalition Scenarios** | `[REQUIRED: Which coalition configurations benefit/suffer?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Voter Salience** | `[REQUIRED: Which voter segments are most affected? By how much?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Campaign Vulnerability** | `[REQUIRED: Does this create campaign attack vectors for opposition?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Policy Legacy** | `[REQUIRED: Will this become an electoral asset or liability?]` | `[Evidence]` | + +**Overall Electoral Significance**: `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]` + +**Most Likely Narrative**: `[REQUIRED: How will this be framed in the 2026 campaign?]` + +--- + ## ๐ฎ Forward Indicators (MANDATORY) > **โ ๏ธ This section is MANDATORY โ analysis without forward indicators is incomplete and will be REJECTED.** @@ -292,6 +331,18 @@ graph LR --- +## ๐ฏ Confidence Scale Reference (5-Level) + +| Level | Label | Criteria | Evidence Threshold | +|-------|-------|----------|--------------------| +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Speculation only, single unverified source | 0โ1 sources, no corroboration | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators | 2 sources, indirect evidence | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration | 3+ sources, moderate agreement | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Official records, documented data, direct evidence | Official docs, voting records, committee reports | +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus | Multiple official sources, cross-validated | + +--- + ## โ Quality Self-Check Checklist > **Pre-commit validation โ every item MUST be checked before finalising this synthesis. Derived from SHARED_PROMPT_PATTERNS.md ยงQuality Self-Check Protocol.** @@ -310,14 +361,18 @@ graph LR - [ ] **MCP Data Provenance:** All data sources listed with timestamps - [ ] **No placeholder text remaining:** Search for `[REQUIRED` โ zero hits expected - [ ] **Cross-document patterns identified:** Synthesis adds value beyond concatenating individual analyses +- [ ] **Election 2026 Implications present:** All 5 dimensions assessed with evidence and Overall Electoral Significance rating +- [ ] **Historical Comparison table filled:** Current period compared with prior periods and trend arrows +- [ ] **5-level confidence applied:** Overall Confidence uses VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW scale - [ ] **Named actors:** โฅ3 named politicians/parties cited across the synthesis --- **Document Control:** - **Template Path:** `/analysis/templates/synthesis-summary.md` -- **Version:** 2.2 -- **Effective Date:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +- **Version:** 2.3 +- **Effective Date:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +- **Key Changes v2.3:** Added Election 2026 Implications section, Historical Comparison tables, 5-level confidence scale (VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW), updated quality checklist - **Consumed By:** All news article generator workflows - **ISMS Alignment:** ISO 27001:2022 A.5.7 (Threat Intelligence), NIST CSF 2.0 ID.RA (Risk Assessment) - **Classification:** Public diff --git a/analysis/templates/threat-analysis.md b/analysis/templates/threat-analysis.md index b45e20b77..fd4eb31a9 100644 --- a/analysis/templates/threat-analysis.md +++ b/analysis/templates/threat-analysis.md @@ -11,12 +11,12 @@ -**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 3.2 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +**๐ Document Owner:** CEO | **๐ Version:** 3.3 | **๐ Last Updated:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) **๐ข Owner:** Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | **๐ท๏ธ Classification:** Public > **๐ Template Instructions:** Copy to `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/`. Save as `threat-analysis.md` in the workflow's own folder (never overwrite another workflow's files). Each threat requires evidence citations and multi-framework analysis. See [methodologies/political-threat-framework.md](../methodologies/political-threat-framework.md). @@ -203,8 +203,14 @@ graph TD | Path | Steps Required | Feasibility (1โ5) | Detectability (1โ5) | Political Cost | Most Likely? | |------|:--------------:|:-----------------:|:-------------------:|:--------------:|:------------:| -| Path A | `[#]` | `[1-5]` | `[1-5]` | `[H/M/L]` | `[Y/N]` | -| Path B | `[#]` | `[1-5]` | `[1-5]` | `[H/M/L]` | `[Y/N]` | +**Political Cost scale:** `VH = Very High` ยท `H = High` ยท `M = Medium` ยท `L = Low` ยท `VL = Very Low` + +> Rate the expected political cost to the attacker if the path is attempted or exposed (e.g. public backlash, coalition fracture, media scrutiny, loss of legitimacy, sanctions, or electoral damage). + +| Path | Steps Required | Feasibility (1โ5) | Detectability (1โ5) | Political Cost | Most Likely? | +|------|:--------------:|:-----------------:|:-------------------:|:--------------:|:------------:| +| Path A | `[#]` | `[1-5]` | `[1-5]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | `[Y/N]` | +| Path B | `[#]` | `[1-5]` | `[1-5]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | `[Y/N]` | **Cheapest attack path:** `[REQUIRED: Which path has highest feasibility and lowest cost?]` @@ -244,12 +250,12 @@ graph TD | Attribute | Assessment | Confidence | |-----------|-----------|:----------:| -| **Intent** | `[REQUIRED: What do they want?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| **Capability** | `[REQUIRED: What can they actually do?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| **Opportunity** | `[REQUIRED: What upcoming events create windows?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| **Track Record** | `[REQUIRED: Have they acted on similar threats before?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| **Constraints** | `[REQUIRED: What limits their action?]` | `[H/M/L]` | -| **Overall ICO Level** | `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` | `[H/M/L]` | +| **Intent** | `[REQUIRED: What do they want?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| **Capability** | `[REQUIRED: What can they actually do?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| **Opportunity** | `[REQUIRED: What upcoming events create windows?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| **Track Record** | `[REQUIRED: Have they acted on similar threats before?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| **Constraints** | `[REQUIRED: What limits their action?]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | +| **Overall ICO Level** | `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` | `[VH/H/M/L/VL]` | --- @@ -284,7 +290,7 @@ graph TD 3. **[Threat ID]:** `[Mitigation action]` **Overall Threat Level:** `[REQUIRED: LOW / MODERATE / HIGH / SEVERE]` -**Assessment Confidence:** `[REQUIRED: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]` +**Assessment Confidence:** `[REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]` --- @@ -376,6 +382,34 @@ timeline --- +## ๐ณ๏ธ Election 2026 Threat Implications + +| Dimension | Assessment | Evidence | +|-----------|------------|----------| +| **Electoral Impact** | `[REQUIRED: How do these threats affect September 2026 election positioning?]` | `[Specific evidence]` | +| **Coalition Scenarios** | `[REQUIRED: Which coalition configurations are most threatened before 2026?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Voter Salience** | `[REQUIRED: Which voter segments are most affected by these democratic threats?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Campaign Vulnerability** | `[REQUIRED: How can opposition weaponize these threat findings?]` | `[Evidence]` | +| **Policy Legacy** | `[REQUIRED: Will these threats materialize into electoral liabilities by Sept 2026?]` | `[Evidence]` | + +**Overall Electoral Significance**: `[REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]` + +**Most Likely Electoral Narrative**: `[REQUIRED: How will opposition frame these democratic integrity threats in 2026 campaign?]` + +--- + +## ๐ฏ Confidence Scale Reference (5-Level) + +| Level | Label | Criteria | Evidence Threshold | +|-------|-------|----------|--------------------| +| โฌ 1 | **VERY LOW** | Speculation only, single unverified source | 0โ1 sources, no corroboration | +| ๐ฅ 2 | **LOW** | Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators | 2 sources, indirect evidence | +| ๐ง 3 | **MEDIUM** | Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration | 3+ sources, moderate agreement | +| ๐ฉ 4 | **HIGH** | Official records, documented data, direct evidence | Official docs, voting records, committee reports | +| ๐ฆ 5 | **VERY HIGH** | Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus | Multiple official sources, cross-validated | + +--- + ## ๐ Cross-References > *Link to sibling analysis files and same-day analysis from other article types.* @@ -405,6 +439,8 @@ timeline - [ ] **MCP Data Provenance:** All data sources listed; every threat severity score traceable - [ ] **No placeholder text remaining:** Search for `[REQUIRED` โ zero hits expected - [ ] **Political Threat Taxonomy used:** NOT STRIDE categories โ confirmed using NI/LI/AC/TR/DP/PB +- [ ] **Election 2026 Threat Implications present:** All 5 dimensions assessed with overall electoral significance rating +- [ ] **5-level confidence applied:** Threat severity assessments use the full confidence scale where applicable - [ ] **Named actors:** โฅ2 named threat actors with party affiliations or institutional roles --- @@ -412,8 +448,9 @@ timeline **Document Control:** - **Template Path:** `/analysis/templates/threat-analysis.md` - **Framework Reference:** [THREAT_MODEL.md](../../THREAT_MODEL.md), [methodologies/political-threat-framework.md](../methodologies/political-threat-framework.md) -- **Version:** 3.2 -- **Effective Date:** 2026-04-06 (UTC) +- **Version:** 3.3 +- **Effective Date:** 2026-06-01 (UTC) +- **Key Changes v3.3:** Added Election 2026 Threat Implications section, 5-level confidence scale reference, updated quality checklist - **Frameworks:** Attack Trees, Kill Chain, Diamond Model, Political Threat Taxonomy, Threat Actor Profiling - **Advanced Sections:** Threat Evolution Timeline, Cross-Methodology Linkage - **ISMS Alignment:** ISO 27001:2022 A.5.7 (Threat Intelligence), NIST CSF 2.0 ID.RA (Risk Assessment), DE.CM (Security Continuous Monitoring)