📁 Structural Metadata Methodology (Provenance & Linkage)

📊 Family B — Data Provenance, Cross-Reference Mapping, and Manifest Generation
🎯 manifest.json · cross-reference-map.md · data-download-manifest.md · Citation Integrity

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.1 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-25 (UTC) 🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-07-31 🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

🔄 Tradecraft Anchors

Element	Value	Reference
F3EAD Stage	EXPLOIT — extract and structure metadata from raw data sources	Provenance mapping occurs during data exploitation phase
PIRs Served	Enables audit trail for all PIR answers — every fact traceable to source	See `political-style-guide.md` §PIR/EEI
Admiralty Floor	Manifest records source grade for each data item; cross-reference inherits source grades	See `political-style-guide.md` §Admiralty
WEP Requirement	Not applicable — Family B is metadata, not estimative	N/A
ICD 203 Gate	Standard 1 (sourcing), Standard 6 (traceable reasoning)	See `political-style-guide.md` §ICD 203
SAT(s)	Network Analysis, Chronological Review, Link Analysis	See `political-style-guide.md` §SATs

🎯 Purpose

Family B provides the provenance infrastructure that makes every analytical claim auditable. It produces three output types:

Output	Purpose	Consumption
`manifest.json`	Machine-readable inventory of every data item in the run	Validation scripts, downstream workflows, audit logs
`cross-reference-map.md`	Human-readable link graph showing document-to-document relationships	Analysts tracing claim provenance, ACH evidence sourcing
`data-download-manifest.md`	Catalogue of all EP MCP tool calls, parameters, and retrieved datasets	Reproducibility, debugging, GDPR Article 30 compliance

Why Provenance Matters

Auditability — Every claim in Family A/C/D artifacts traces back to a manifest entry
Reproducibility — Anyone can re-run the same MCP calls and verify data
Integrity — SHA-256 hashes detect data tampering or drift
GDPR Compliance — Article 30 requires records of processing activities

📊 Family B Output Architecture

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"}}}%%
flowchart TB
    classDef input fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef proc fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef meta fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723
    classDef out fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,color:#FFFFFF

    subgraph STAGE_A["Stage A — Data Collection"]
        MCP1[EP MCP get_adopted_texts]:::input
        MCP2[EP MCP get_procedures]:::input
        MCP3[EP MCP get_meps]:::input
        MCP4[EP MCP get_voting_records]:::input
        MCP5[IMF imf-fetch-data<br/>primary economic]:::input
        MCP6[World Bank get_social_data<br/>non-economic]:::input
    end

    subgraph FAMILY_B["Family B — Provenance Layer"]
        M[manifest.json<br/>Machine inventory]:::meta
        X[cross-reference-map.md<br/>Human link graph]:::meta
        D[data-download-manifest.md<br/>Call catalogue]:::meta
    end

    subgraph DOWNSTREAM["Family A/C/D/E"]
        A[synthesis-summary.md]:::out
        C[devils-advocate-analysis.md]:::out
        E[per-document-analysis/*.md]:::out
    end

    MCP1 --> M
    MCP2 --> M
    MCP3 --> M
    MCP4 --> M
    MCP5 --> M
    M --> X
    M --> D
    X --> A
    X --> C
    M --> E

📋 Part 1 — `manifest.json` Schema

Top-Level Structure

{
  "$schema": "https://euparliamentmonitor.com/schemas/manifest-v2.json",
  "version": "2.0",
  "runId": "breaking-2026-04-21-run01",
  "articleType": "breaking",
  "generatedAt": "2026-04-21T14:32:17Z",
  "workflow": "news-breaking-analysis.md",
  "history": [],
  "data": { ... },
  "artifacts": { ... },
  "statistics": { ... }
}

`data` Section — Source Inventory

"data": {
  "epMcp": {
    "adoptedTexts": [
      {
        "docId": "TA(2026)0123",
        "title": "Resolution on Digital Services Act implementation",
        "retrievedAt": "2026-04-21T14:00:05Z",
        "endpoint": "get_adopted_texts",
        "params": { "year": 2026, "limit": 50 },
        "contentHash": "sha256:abc123...",
        "sourceGrade": "A1",
        "wordCount": 4520
      }
    ],
    "procedures": [ ... ],
    "meps": [ ... ],
    "votingRecords": [ ... ],
    "committees": [ ... ],
    "questions": [ ... ]
  },
  "imf": {
    "vintage": "WEO-April-2026",
    "economicIndicators": [
      {
        "databaseId": "WEO",
        "indicator": "NGDP_RPCH",
        "countries": ["DEU", "FRA", "ITA", "ESP", "POL"],
        "years": 10,
        "retrievedAt": "2026-04-21T14:01:12Z",
        "endpoint": "imf-fetch-data"
      }
    ]
  },
  "worldBank": {
    "nonEconomicIndicators": [
      {
        "indicator": "HEALTH_EXPENDITURE",
        "countries": ["DE", "FR", "IT", "ES", "PL"],
        "years": 10,
        "retrievedAt": "2026-04-21T14:01:12Z",
        "endpoint": "get_health_data"
      }
    ]
  },
  "externalSources": [
    {
      "url": "https://data.consilium.europa.eu/...",
      "retrievedAt": "2026-04-21T14:02:30Z",
      "contentHash": "sha256:def456...",
      "sourceGrade": "B2"
    }
  ]
}

`artifacts` Section — Output Inventory

"artifacts": {
  "intelligence": [
    {
      "filename": "synthesis-summary.md",
      "lineCount": 245,
      "minLines": 205,
      "status": "pass",
      "generatedAt": "2026-04-21T15:45:22Z"
    },
    { ... }
  ],
  "classification": [ ... ],
  "risk-scoring": [ ... ],
  "threat-assessment": [ ... ],
  "documents": [ ... ]
}

`statistics` Section — Quality Metrics

"statistics": {
  "totalDataItems": 156,
  "totalArtifacts": 34,
  "artifactsPassing": 34,
  "artifactsFailing": 0,
  "sourceDistribution": {
    "A1": 45,
    "A2": 32,
    "B1": 28,
    "B2": 31,
    "B3": 15,
    "C2": 5
  },
  "politicalGroupCoverage": {
    "EPP": { "mentions": 34, "depthScore": 1.2 },
    "S&D": { "mentions": 28, "depthScore": 1.0 },
    "Renew": { "mentions": 22, "depthScore": 0.95 },
    "Greens/EFA": { "mentions": 18, "depthScore": 0.88 },
    "ECR": { "mentions": 20, "depthScore": 0.92 },
    "PfE": { "mentions": 16, "depthScore": 0.85 },
    "The Left": { "mentions": 14, "depthScore": 0.82 },
    "NI": { "mentions": 8, "depthScore": 0.70 }
  }
}

`history` Section — Run Continuity

"history": [
  {
    "runId": "breaking-2026-04-21-run01",
    "timestamp": "2026-04-21T15:50:00Z",
    "artifactsUpgraded": ["pestle-analysis.md"],
    "artifactsNew": ["executive-brief.md"],
    "artifactsUnchanged": 32
  }
]

🗺️ Part 2 — `cross-reference-map.md` Structure

Purpose

Human-readable document that maps which artifacts cite which data sources and which documents reference each other. Enables analysts to trace any claim back to its origin.

Required Sections

2.1 Artifact → Source Matrix

## Artifact → Source Matrix

| Artifact | Primary Sources | Secondary Sources | Source Count |
|----------|-----------------|-------------------|--------------|
| synthesis-summary.md | TA(2026)0123, TA(2026)0124 | QE-001234, A9-0045/2026 | 8 |
| stakeholder-map.md | get_meps(country=DE), get_voting_records | MEP press statements | 12 |
| scenario-forecast.md | get_procedures, get_adopted_texts | IMF WEO GDP projections (primary) | 6 |

2.2 Document → Document Links

## Document → Document Links

| Document A | Relationship | Document B | Evidence |
|------------|--------------|------------|----------|
| COM(2025)0456 | Amends | DIR 2019/1024 | Art. 12 explicit reference |
| TA(2026)0123 | Adopts | A9-0045/2026 | Committee report |
| A9-0045/2026 | References | QE-001234 | Recital 15 citation |

2.3 Link Network Mermaid

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff"}}}%%
graph TB
    classDef com fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef ta fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef report fill:#FF9800,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef qa fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,color:#FFFFFF

    COM["COM(2025)0456<br/>Commission Proposal"]:::com
    TA["TA(2026)0123<br/>Adopted Text"]:::ta
    A9["A9-0045/2026<br/>Committee Report"]:::report
    QE["QE-001234<br/>Written Question"]:::qa

    COM -->|initiates| A9
    A9 -->|adopted as| TA
    QE -->|cited in| A9
    COM -->|amends| DIR["DIR 2019/1024"]

2.4 Citation Integrity Check

## Citation Integrity

| Artifact | Total Claims | Claims Sourced | Unsourced Claims | Integrity % |
|----------|--------------|----------------|------------------|-------------|
| synthesis-summary.md | 24 | 24 | 0 | 100% |
| stakeholder-map.md | 18 | 17 | 1 | 94% |
| devils-advocate-analysis.md | 32 | 32 | 0 | 100% |

📥 Part 3 — `data-download-manifest.md` Structure

Purpose

Comprehensive log of every EP MCP tool call made during the workflow run. Enables reproducibility and GDPR Article 30 compliance.

Required Sections

3.1 Tool Call Log

## EP MCP Tool Calls

| # | Tool | Parameters | Timestamp | Items Retrieved | Duration |
|---|------|------------|-----------|-----------------|----------|
| 1 | `get_adopted_texts` | year=2026, limit=50 | 2026-04-21T14:00:05Z | 47 | 1.2s |
| 2 | `get_procedures` | limit=100, offset=0 | 2026-04-21T14:00:08Z | 100 | 2.1s |
| 3 | `get_meps` | country=DE, active=true | 2026-04-21T14:00:15Z | 96 | 0.8s |
| 4 | `get_voting_records` | dateFrom=2026-04-01 | 2026-04-21T14:00:20Z | 23 | 1.5s |
| 5 | `analyze_coalition_dynamics` | — | 2026-04-21T14:00:25Z | 1 | 3.2s |

3.2 Data Volume Summary

## Data Volume Summary

| Data Type | Items | Total Size | Avg Size/Item |
|-----------|-------|------------|---------------|
| Adopted Texts | 47 | 2.3 MB | 49 KB |
| Procedures | 100 | 1.8 MB | 18 KB |
| MEP Records | 96 | 0.4 MB | 4 KB |
| Voting Records | 23 | 0.9 MB | 39 KB |
| **Total** | **266** | **5.4 MB** | **20 KB** |

3.3 API Response Codes

## API Response Codes

| Tool | HTTP 200 | HTTP 4xx | HTTP 5xx | Retries |
|------|----------|----------|----------|---------|
| get_adopted_texts | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| get_procedures | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| get_meps | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| get_voting_records | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

3.4 Content Hash Inventory

## Content Hash Inventory

| Item ID | SHA-256 (first 16 chars) | Verification |
|---------|--------------------------|--------------|
| TA(2026)0123 | abc123def456... | ✅ Match |
| TA(2026)0124 | 789xyz012abc... | ✅ Match |
| A9-0045/2026 | fedcba987654... | ✅ Match |

🔗 Integration Points

Manifest Consumption by Validation Scripts

The scripts/validate-analysis-completeness.js CLI (npm run validate-analysis -- <runDir>) reads manifest.json to:

Verify all required artifacts exist
Check line counts against reference-quality-thresholds.json
Validate source grade distribution
Generate pass/fail report

Cross-Reference Consumption by Family C

The devils-advocate-analysis.md workflow reads cross-reference-map.md to:

Source ACH evidence from verified citations
Identify document clusters for hypothesis testing
Map claim provenance for red-team challenges

Data Manifest Consumption by Auditors

The data-download-manifest.md provides:

GDPR Article 30 compliance documentation
Debugging information for failed workflows
Reproducibility instructions for verification

✅ Family B Completion Checklist

`manifest.json`

Version 2.0 schema compliant
All data.epMcp sections populated
All artifacts have lineCount and status
statistics.sourceDistribution sums correctly
statistics.politicalGroupCoverage includes all 8 groups
history array includes current run entry

`cross-reference-map.md`

Artifact → Source matrix complete
Document → Document links section present
Link network Mermaid included
Citation integrity ≥95% for all artifacts
Unsourced claims flagged and explained

`data-download-manifest.md`

All EP MCP tool calls logged with timestamps
Data volume summary populated
API response codes section present
Content hash inventory complete
No HTTP 5xx errors unresolved

🔐 ISMS Alignment

Control	How this methodology satisfies it
ISO 27001 A.5.10 (Information classification)	Manifest records source grades per ICD 203
ISO 27001 A.8.3 (Access control)	Audit trail for all data access via manifest
NIST CSF ID.AM-3 (Data flows mapped)	Cross-reference map visualizes data flow
NIST CSF PR.DS-6 (Integrity checking)	SHA-256 hashes enable integrity verification
CIS 8.1 (Audit log management)	Data download manifest provides audit log
GDPR Art. 30 (Records of processing)	Data manifest satisfies processing record requirement
NIS2 Art. 21 (Risk management)	Provenance enables risk tracing

📄 Document Control

Owner: CEO (Intelligence Program) · Reviewer: Chief Analyst + CISO · Review Cycle: Quarterly Next Review: 2026-07-31 · Related: ai-driven-analysis-guide.md, per-document-methodology.md, artifact-catalog.md

Generated following EU Parliament Monitor Structural Metadata Methodology v1.0 — Family B Provenance & Linkage Layer.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

📁 Structural Metadata Methodology (Provenance & Linkage)

🔄 Tradecraft Anchors

🎯 Purpose

Why Provenance Matters

📊 Family B Output Architecture

📋 Part 1 — `manifest.json` Schema

Top-Level Structure

`data` Section — Source Inventory

`artifacts` Section — Output Inventory

`statistics` Section — Quality Metrics

`history` Section — Run Continuity

🗺️ Part 2 — `cross-reference-map.md` Structure

Purpose

Required Sections

2.1 Artifact → Source Matrix

2.2 Document → Document Links

2.3 Link Network Mermaid

2.4 Citation Integrity Check

📥 Part 3 — `data-download-manifest.md` Structure

Purpose

Required Sections

3.1 Tool Call Log

3.2 Data Volume Summary

3.3 API Response Codes

3.4 Content Hash Inventory

🔗 Integration Points

Manifest Consumption by Validation Scripts

Cross-Reference Consumption by Family C

Data Manifest Consumption by Auditors

✅ Family B Completion Checklist

`manifest.json`

`cross-reference-map.md`

`data-download-manifest.md`

🔐 ISMS Alignment

📄 Document Control

Uh oh!

FilesExpand file tree

structural-metadata-methodology.md

Latest commit

History

structural-metadata-methodology.md

File metadata and controls

📁 Structural Metadata Methodology (Provenance & Linkage)

🔄 Tradecraft Anchors

🎯 Purpose

Why Provenance Matters

📊 Family B Output Architecture

📋 Part 1 — manifest.json Schema

Top-Level Structure

data Section — Source Inventory

artifacts Section — Output Inventory

statistics Section — Quality Metrics

history Section — Run Continuity

🗺️ Part 2 — cross-reference-map.md Structure

Purpose

Required Sections

2.1 Artifact → Source Matrix

2.2 Document → Document Links

2.3 Link Network Mermaid

2.4 Citation Integrity Check

📥 Part 3 — data-download-manifest.md Structure

Purpose

Required Sections

3.1 Tool Call Log

3.2 Data Volume Summary

3.3 API Response Codes

3.4 Content Hash Inventory

🔗 Integration Points

Manifest Consumption by Validation Scripts

Cross-Reference Consumption by Family C

Data Manifest Consumption by Auditors

✅ Family B Completion Checklist

manifest.json

cross-reference-map.md

data-download-manifest.md

🔐 ISMS Alignment

📄 Document Control

📋 Part 1 — `manifest.json` Schema

`data` Section — Source Inventory

`artifacts` Section — Output Inventory

`statistics` Section — Quality Metrics

`history` Section — Run Continuity

🗺️ Part 2 — `cross-reference-map.md` Structure

📥 Part 3 — `data-download-manifest.md` Structure

`manifest.json`

`cross-reference-map.md`

`data-download-manifest.md`