Skip to content

synthesis-methodology.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
546 lines (439 loc) · 36.7 KB

synthesis-methodology.md

File metadata and controls

546 lines (439 loc) · 36.7 KB

Hack23 Logo

📘 Synthesis & Scoring Methodology — European Parliament

📊 Stage B.7 — Core Synthesis Layer for EP Political Intelligence
🎯 Significance Scoring · Synthesis Summary · Stakeholder Perspectives · Coalition Analysis · Executive Briefing

Owner Version Effective Date Classification

📋 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 ANALYZE → DISSEMINATE Synthesis phase converts EP raw evidence into decision-grade intelligence
PIRs Served EP Institutional Authority (PIR-1); Coalition Integrity (PIR-2); Legislative Throughput (PIR-4); Trilogue Outcomes (PIR-5); MEP Accountability (PIR-6); Narrative Integrity (PIR-7) — all PIRs inform synthesis See political-style-guide.md §PIR/EEI Catalog
Admiralty Floor Evidence must reach [B2] or higher for inclusion in executive brief; MEP attribution claims require [A1] See political-style-guide.md §Admiralty Code
WEP Requirement All forward-looking claims use WEP probability language; voting-pattern predictions use WEP bands with confidence overlay See political-style-guide.md §WEP + ODNI
ICD 203 Gate Standard 5 (customer relevance — actionable for editors/monitors), 6 (logical argumentation), 8 (accurate judgments with confidence labels) See political-style-guide.md §ICD 203
SAT(s) Key Assumptions Check (synthesis-summary), Brainstorming (stakeholder-perspectives), ACH (scenario branches), Quality of Information Check (evidence grading) See political-style-guide.md §SATs

🎯 Purpose

This methodology governs Stage B.7 — Core Synthesis in the EU Parliament Monitor intelligence production cycle. The synthesis layer transforms raw per-document evidence (Family E / per-file-political-intelligence), structural metadata (data-download-manifest / cross-reference-map), and EP MCP data into decision-ready intelligence products answering four questions:

  1. What happened this session/week/day? (synthesis-summary.md)
  2. Which developments matter most? (significance-scoring.md)
  3. Who is affected and how? (stakeholder-perspectives.md + coalition-dynamics.md)
  4. What should a decision-maker do in ≤90 seconds of reading? (executive-brief.md)

Every output in this layer is produced for every analysis workflow — breaking news, week-in-review, month-in-review, plenary analysis, committee reports. No exceptions.

Scope: 14-Language European Transparency Platform

Every synthesis product must serve citizens across the EU's 14 EUPM platform languages (EN, FR, DE, ES, IT, PL, RO, NL, EL, HU, PT, CS, SV, BG). While the primary analytic output is produced in English, editorial teams adapt synthesis findings for multi-language publication. Key terminology (e.g., spitzenkandidaten, trilogue, Article 7 TEU, ordinary legislative procedure) is glossed on first use to ensure accessibility.

flowchart LR
    classDef evidence fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1565C0,color:#0D47A1
    classDef scoring fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#FFC107,color:#3E2723
    classDef synthesis fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#4CAF50,color:#1B5E20
    classDef brief fill:#F3E5F5,stroke:#7B1FA2,color:#311B92
    classDef stakeholder fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#FF9800,color:#BF360C

    E["Per-document<br/>intelligence (Family E)"]:::evidence
    M["EP MCP data<br/>get_meps, get_voting_records,<br/>get_adopted_texts, etc."]:::evidence
    B["Manifest + xref map<br/>(provenance layer)"]:::evidence
    
    S1[significance-scoring.md<br/>📊 rank + DIW]:::scoring
    S2[synthesis-summary.md<br/>📋 narrative synthesis]:::synthesis
    S3[stakeholder-perspectives.md<br/>🎭 political-group views]:::stakeholder
    S4[coalition-dynamics.md<br/>💥 grand-coalition analysis]:::stakeholder
    S5[executive-brief.md<br/>⚡ ≤90s decision brief]:::brief

    E --> S1
    M --> S1
    B --> S1
    S1 --> S2
    S1 --> S3
    S3 --> S4
    S2 --> S5
    S4 --> S5
Loading

📐 Evidence & Confidence Standards

All outputs in this layer inherit the platform-wide rules from osint-tradecraft-standards.md:

Rule Applied To EP-Specific Adaptation
Every claim cites a document reference number, named MEP with political group, vote count, plenary session ID, or primary-source URL All five outputs EP document refs: COM(2024) 123, A9-0123/2024, B9-0456/2024, RC-B9-0789/2024; MEP format: "Name SURNAME (Group/Country)"
5-level confidence scale — 🟦 VERY HIGH / 🟩 HIGH / 🟧 MEDIUM / 🟥 LOW / ⬛ VERY LOW Required per scored row Voting-record data from get_voting_records achieves 🟦 VERY HIGH; leaked committee drafts max at 🟥 LOW
Color-coded Mermaid using canonical Hack23 palette ≥1 per output EPP blue (#1565C0), S&D red (#D32F2F), Renew yellow (#FFC107), Greens/EFA green (#2E7D32), ECR purple (#7B1FA2), PfE orange (#FF9800), Left maroon (#880E4F)
EU policy terms glossed on first use Synthesis + executive brief spitzenkandidaten (lead candidates), trilogue (EP-Council-Commission negotiation), Article 7 TEU (rule-of-law suspension procedure), ordinary legislative procedure (codecision)
Political-group neutrality — equal analytical depth for EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, ECR, PfE, Left, and non-attached MEPs when evidence supports coverage All outputs No group receives default priority; depth follows evidence density and democratic impact

EP Document Identifier Format

EU Parliament Monitor uses standardized EP document identifiers throughout synthesis products:

Document Type Format Example Description
Commission proposals COM(2024) 123 final Legislative proposals from European Commission
EP Reports A9-0123/2024 Committee reports from EP standing committees
EP Motions for resolution B9-0456/2024 Political group or MEP resolutions
Joint motions RC-B9-0789/2024 Joint resolutions across multiple groups
Amendments AM 123-456 Amendment numbers in committee/plenary
Written questions E-000123/2024 MEP questions to Commission/Council
Oral questions O-000045/2024 MEP oral questions for debate

🔢 Part 1 — Significance Scoring (significance-scoring.md)

Purpose

Rank every document/development processed in the workflow so downstream products (synthesis, executive brief, news articles) can focus attention where it matters. Significance scoring is the single source of truth for priority across all Family A, C, and D intelligence products.

Input

  • All per-file-political-intelligence analyses produced during the workflow
  • EP MCP data: get_adopted_texts, get_voting_records, get_procedures, search_documents
  • Cross-reference-map.md (to detect bundle / coordinated activity multipliers)
  • Previous session's significance-scoring.md (for trend comparison)

Output — Required Structure

  1. Scoring matrix table — one row per development, columns:
    • Rank · Document/Event ID · Title (short) · Type · Democratic-Impact Weight (DIW) · Tier · Confidence · Top rationale (≤25 words)
  2. Tier distribution summary — count of P0 / P1 / P2 / P3 developments
  3. DIW color-coded distribution — horizontal bar Mermaid using canonical EP political-group palette
  4. Drivers of top-ranked items — bulleted rationale for every P0 + P1 entry with document-ref citations
  5. Trend comparison — delta vs. previous session/week with notable shifts highlighted

DIW Formula — EP-Adapted Canonical

Democratic-Impact Weight (DIW) is scored 0.0 – 10.0 along six dimensions, each 0.0 – 1.0 normalised, summed, then multiplied by 10 ÷ 6 for the final 0–10 scale:

Dimension Weight Example High-Score Indicator (EP Context)
🏛️ Institutional reach 1.0 Treaty amendment (TEU/TFEU), election law change (Electoral Act reform), EP Rules of Procedure amendment, Article 7 TEU trigger
⚖️ Rights & freedoms impact 1.0 Charter of Fundamental Rights Article invocation, GDPR derogation, freedom-of-movement restriction, rule-of-law conditionality
💰 Fiscal magnitude 1.0 ≥1% of EU budget (€1.86B in 2024), ≥10M direct beneficiaries across member states, MFF (Multi-annual Financial Framework) revision
🗳️ Electoral salience 1.0 Pre-election window (≤6 months to EP election) + top-10 Eurobarometer priority issue, spitzenkandidaten positioning, national-delegation campaign issue
🔀 Coalition pressure 1.0 Forces deviation from EPP-S&D grand coalition baseline, triggers PfE/ECR pivot, splits national delegations (e.g., Fidesz vs. mainstream EPP)
📡 Media resonance 1.0 Coordinated political-group response, Commission President statement, Council emergency meeting, trending #EP hashtag, front-page coverage in ≥3 major EU outlets

Tier Mapping

Tier DIW Range Trigger Downstream Template Set
P0 (Critical) ≥ 8.0 Constitutional/treaty-level, Article 7, major trilogue breakdown, election interference All Family C + D templates; dedicated deep-analysis
P1 (High) 6.0 – 7.9 Significant legislation (climate, migration, defence), grand-coalition test, national-delegation fracture Scenario-forecast, devils-advocate, stakeholder-impact, threat-model
P2 (Medium) 4.0 – 5.9 Routine legislative procedure, committee report adoption, standard resolutions Synthesised in summary; listed in index
P3 (Low) < 4.0 Procedural motions, technical amendments, administrative decisions Listed in manifest, not narrated unless part of cluster

Quality Gate

  • Every development has a DIW in [0.0, 10.0] with transparent calculation per dimension
  • DIW cross-checks against per-file-political-intelligence significance — ≤1.5 variance or reconciled with rationale
  • Tier counts reconcile with data-download-manifest total document count
  • Top five rationales each cite ≥2 document refs and ≥1 named MEP with political group
  • No tier inflation: baseline EP routine legislative activity scores 3.5–5.0; only exceptional events exceed 7.0

Example DIW Calculation — Worked EP Scenario

Document: B9-0123/2024 — Joint motion on Article 7 TEU procedure against Poland (rule-of-law concerns)

Dimension Score Rationale
Institutional reach 1.0 Article 7 TEU is the EU's nuclear option — treaty-level enforcement
Rights & freedoms 0.9 Judicial independence (Charter Article 47) at stake
Fiscal magnitude 0.4 Potential €10B cohesion fund suspension (indirect)
Electoral salience 0.8 Pre-election positioning on rule of law; Eurobarometer #3 priority
Coalition pressure 1.0 Splits EPP (Polish delegation vs. mainstream); tests grand coalition
Media resonance 1.0 Front-page across EU; Commission/Council emergency statements
Total 5.1 / 6.0 DIW = (5.1 ÷ 6) × 10 = 8.5 → P0 (Critical)

📋 Part 2 — Synthesis Summary (synthesis-summary.md)

Purpose

Produce the canonical narrative of the session/week/cycle. Every other Family A product derives its headline from this file. The synthesis-summary is the single file a decision-maker reads if they have only 5 minutes before a briefing or editorial decision.

Input

  • significance-scoring.md (drives ordering and selection)
  • All per-file-political-intelligence analyses (drives substantive detail)
  • cross-reference-map.md (drives "bundle" and "pattern" callouts)
  • EP MCP: get_plenary_sessions, get_voting_records, analyze_coalition_dynamics, compare_political_groups
  • Previous 5 sessions' synthesis-summary files (for trend narration and shift detection)

Output — Required Structure

  1. Executive summary — 3–4 paragraphs, inverted-pyramid style:
    • Paragraph 1 (BLUF): Single most significant finding with document ref, MEP/group attribution, vote count if applicable, confidence label
    • Paragraph 2: Second-tier finding with evidence chain
    • Paragraph 3: Contextual placement (trend vs. prior sessions, coalition implications)
    • Paragraph 4 (optional): Forward indicator — what to watch in next 7/30/90 days
  2. Strategic finding cards — 5–9 cards, one per major theme; each card contains:
    • Finding (≤60 words, headline statement)
    • Evidence (≥3 document refs or vote counts with Admiralty grades)
    • Confidence label (🟦/🟩/🟧/🟥/⬛ with ODNI justification)
    • Dissenting view (alternative interpretation or counter-hypothesis, ≤40 words)
    • Forward indicator (concrete observable event with ISO date or session reference)
  3. Pattern table — coordinated filings (joint motions), cross-group consensus (unanimous votes), grand-coalition tests, national-delegation splits
  4. Thematic network Mermaid — color-coded nodes by theme (using EP political-group palette), edges weighted by cross-reference strength from cross-reference-map
  5. Coalition dynamics snapshot — EPP+S&D grand coalition cohesion score, left-of-centre bloc (S&D+Greens/EFA+Left), right-of-centre bloc (EPP+ECR+PfE), cross-cutting alliances
  6. Links to: executive-brief.md, stakeholder-perspectives.md, coalition-dynamics.md, scenario-forecast.md (always produced), per-file-political-intelligence index
  7. Methodology footer — EP MCP tools used, data cutoff time (CET), confidence-in-evidence distribution, SATs applied (≥3 named)

Required Mermaid — Thematic Network

graph TB
    classDef climate fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef migration fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef fiscal fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef ruleoflaw fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef defence fill:#424242,stroke:#212121,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef digital fill:#0288D1,stroke:#01579B,color:#FFFFFF

    T1[Climate & Energy<br/>4 documents · DIW 7.2<br/>Fit for 55 package]:::climate
    T2[Migration & Asylum<br/>3 documents · DIW 8.4<br/>Pact on Migration]:::migration
    T3[Fiscal Governance<br/>2 documents · DIW 6.9<br/>MFF mid-term review]:::fiscal
    T4[Rule of Law<br/>1 document · DIW 9.1<br/>Article 7 Hungary]:::ruleoflaw
    T5[Defence & Security<br/>3 documents · DIW 7.8<br/>European Defence Fund]:::defence
    T6[Digital Regulation<br/>2 documents · DIW 6.5<br/>AI Act trilogue]:::digital

    T1 -->|budget trade-off| T3
    T2 -->|Schengen link| T4
    T4 -->|rule-of-law conditionality| T3
    T5 -->|budget allocation| T3
    T6 -->|fundamental rights| T4
    T1 -->|climate finance| T5
Loading

Quality Gate

  • Top-ranked P0/P1 items from significance-scoring appear in first 5 strategic finding cards
  • Every card cites ≥3 primary sources (document refs or vote records) with Admiralty grades
  • Confidence labels distributed realistically (not every card "🟩 HIGH" — expect 🟧 MODERATE for forward-looking claims)
  • EU policy terms glossed on first use with parenthetical English equivalents
  • Thematic Mermaid includes all themes mentioned in strategic finding cards
  • Coalition dynamics snapshot uses current EP10 seat counts (post-2024 election): EPP 188, S&D 136, Renew 77, Greens/EFA 53, ECR 78, PfE 84, Left 46, NI 58 (total 720 seats; majority threshold: 361)
  • No partisan framing — equal analytical depth across political groups; dissenting views included for every major finding

Political-Group Seat Distribution Reference (EP10, 2024–2029)

Use these verified seat counts in all coalition-dynamics analysis:

Group Seats % Bloc Lean National Strength
EPP (European People's Party) 188 26.1% Centre-right DE (30), PL (21), ES (22), FR (6), RO (11)
S&D (Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats) 136 18.9% Centre-left DE (16), ES (21), IT (21), RO (9), PL (6)
Renew (Renew Europe) 77 10.7% Liberal FR (23), NL (8), BE (7), RO (8), CZ (7)
Greens/EFA (Greens/European Free Alliance) 53 7.4% Left-green DE (12), FR (13), NL (3), BE (3), SE (4)
ECR (European Conservatives & Reformists) 78 10.8% Right-conservative PL (20), IT (24), CZ (10), SE (4), BE (3)
PfE (Patriots for Europe) 84 11.7% Right-nationalist FR (30), IT (8), HU (11), NL (6), AT (6), CZ (7)
Left (The Left) 46 6.4% Left FR (9), DE (5), ES (6), GR (6), PT (5), NL (1)
NI (Non-Inscrits / Non-attached) 58 8.1% Mixed DE (16), HU (1), SK (2), BG (6), Others
TOTAL 720 100% — 27 member states

🎭 Part 3 — Stakeholder Perspectives (stakeholder-perspectives.md)

Purpose

Document how every political group with material stake interprets the session's findings — from their documented position (votes, resolutions, speeches), not the analyst's projection. This artifact ensures political neutrality by giving equal structured space to all eight EP political groups.

Input

  • significance-scoring.md (drives which items to cover)
  • EP MCP: get_speeches, search_documents, get_parliamentary_questions, get_meps (filtered by political group)
  • Per-file-political-intelligence analyses (carry group spokesperson statements)
  • analyze_voting_patterns output per political group for covered session
  • Eurobarometer polling (where identity of affected electorate matters)

Output — Required Structure

  1. Actor × Issue matrix — rows: political groups (EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens/EFA, ECR, PfE, Left, NI + Commission + Council + key external actors like national governments); columns: top 7 issues from significance-scoring
    • Each cell: position statement (≤30 words), vote pattern if applicable, confidence in attribution
  2. Per-group narrative cards — one card per political group:
    • Group name with seat count and lead MEP names
    • Core position on session's #1 ranked item (≤80 words, citing speeches or resolutions)
    • Coalition posture — alignment with grand coalition, left bloc, right bloc, or ad-hoc cross-cutting alliance
    • Notable dissent — internal group splits or national-delegation fractures (if observable)
    • Forward stance — stated intent for next session/trilogue (≤40 words with document ref)
  3. Position-spectrum Mermaid — horizontal axis from left to right; nodes sized by seat count; color-coded by group; edges show coalition alignment on session's top issue
  4. National-delegation callouts — where a member-state delegation breaks from its group's majority position (e.g., Polish EPP vs. mainstream EPP on rule-of-law)
  5. Commission/Council positions — Executive stance on legislative proposals, Council negotiating position in trilogue
  6. External-actor signals — significant national-government interventions (e.g., German coalition statement, French President remarks) that shape EP dynamics
  7. Confidence assessment — per-group attribution confidence with Admiralty grading of source speeches/votes

Required Mermaid — Position Spectrum

graph LR
    classDef left fill:#880E4F,stroke:#4A0E4E,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef greens fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef sd fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef renew fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723
    classDef epp fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef ecr fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef pfe fill:#FF9800,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF

    LEFT["Left<br/>46 seats<br/>Pro-regulation"]:::left
    GRE["Greens/EFA<br/>53 seats<br/>Pro-climate"]:::greens
    SD["S&D<br/>136 seats<br/>Centre-left"]:::sd
    REN["Renew<br/>77 seats<br/>Liberal-market"]:::renew
    EPP["EPP<br/>188 seats<br/>Centre-right"]:::epp
    ECR["ECR<br/>78 seats<br/>Conservative"]:::ecr
    PFE["PfE<br/>84 seats<br/>Nationalist"]:::pfe

    LEFT ---|grand-coalition-excluded| GRE
    GRE ---|left-bloc| SD
    SD ---|grand-coalition| EPP
    REN ---|market-alignment| EPP
    EPP ---|conservative-alliance| ECR
    ECR ---|right-bloc| PFE
Loading

Quality Gate

  • Every political group (8 groups + NI) has at least one narrative card
  • Actor × Issue matrix complete for top 7 issues — no empty cells (use "no stated position" if group silent)
  • Every position statement cites ≥1 primary source: speech (anförande equivalent), resolution, vote record, written question
  • National-delegation callouts cite specific MEP names with countries
  • Position-spectrum Mermaid uses verified EP10 seat counts (EPP 188, S&D 136, etc.)
  • Commission/Council positions cited from official statements or press releases (not speculation)
  • Confidence labels reflect source quality: speeches = 🟩 HIGH; leaked draft positions = 🟥 LOW

💥 Part 4 — Coalition Dynamics (coalition-dynamics.md)

Purpose

Analyze grand-coalition arithmetic, bloc formation, and pivotal-actor power in the European Parliament. Unlike national parliaments with binary government/opposition, the EP operates through shifting coalitions per policy area. This artifact quantifies coalition viability, voting-pattern alignment, and political-group leverage.

Input

  • significance-scoring.md (identifies votes requiring coalition analysis)
  • EP MCP: analyze_coalition_dynamics, compare_political_groups, detect_voting_anomalies, get_voting_records
  • stakeholder-perspectives.md (group positions feed coalition-formation hypotheses)
  • correlate_intelligence output (cross-tool OSINT correlation for elevated-attention coalition signals)

Output — Required Structure

  1. Grand-coalition baseline — EPP+S&D voting alignment score (0–100%) for session; trend vs. prior sessions; threshold watch (below 60% signals fracture risk)
  2. Bloc-formation table — for each major policy area (climate, migration, fiscal, rule-of-law, defence, digital):
    • Left-of-centre (S&D+Greens/EFA+Left+Renew): seat count, cohesion %, viability vs. 361-seat majority
    • Right-of-centre (EPP+ECR+PfE): seat count, cohesion %, viability vs. 361-seat majority
    • Grand coalition (EPP+S&D): seat count, cohesion %, viability (always ≥361 arithmetically, but cohesion determines reliability)
    • Ad-hoc cross-cutting (e.g., EPP+Greens/EFA on climate; S&D+ECR on national sovereignty): observed instances with vote refs
  3. Pivotal-actor analysis — using Banzhaf power index for each group across observed coalitions:
    • Which group(s) are pivotal (i.e., their defection flips the outcome) most frequently
    • Renew's "kingmaker" role in 50–50 EPP-S&D splits
    • National-delegation swing power (e.g., Polish EPP delegation on rule-of-law votes)
  4. Coalition-fracture signals — outputs from detect_voting_anomalies:
    • Any political group with ≥20% internal dissent on a P0/P1 vote
    • National delegations splitting >40% from group line
    • Unexpected cross-bloc alliances (severity: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW with trend)
  5. Scenario branching — for next session's anticipated P0 votes:
    • Scenario A (Grand coalition holds): EPP+S&D ≥70% alignment → policy passes
    • Scenario B (Left bloc forms): S&D+Greens/EFA+Left+partial Renew ≥361 seats → alternative policy
    • Scenario C (Right bloc forms): EPP+ECR+PfE ≥361 seats → conservative policy
    • Scenario D (Stalemate): No coalition reaches 361 → trilogue deadlock or procedural delay
  6. Coalition-viability Mermaid — color-coded by bloc; nodes sized by seat count; edges by observed voting alignment
  7. Confidence assessment — voting-record data achieves 🟦 VERY HIGH; coalition-cohesion predictions based on historical patterns achieve 🟧 MODERATE

Required Mermaid — Coalition Viability Network

graph TB
    classDef viable fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef marginal fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723
    classDef nonviable fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF

    GC["Grand Coalition<br/>EPP (188) + S&D (136)<br/>= 324 seats<br/>🟢 Viable (361 threshold)"]:::viable
    LC["Left Bloc<br/>S&D (136) + Greens (53)<br/>+ Left (46) + Renew (77)<br/>= 312 seats<br/>🟡 Marginal (need +49)"]:::marginal
    RC["Right Bloc<br/>EPP (188) + ECR (78)<br/>+ PfE (84)<br/>= 350 seats<br/>🟡 Marginal (need +11)"]:::marginal
    CrossGreen["Cross-cutting Green<br/>EPP (188) + Greens (53)<br/>+ Renew (77)<br/>= 318 seats<br/>🟡 Marginal (need +43)"]:::marginal
    CrossNat["Cross-cutting Nat'l Sov<br/>S&D (136) + ECR (78)<br/>+ PfE (84) + Left (46)<br/>= 344 seats<br/>🟡 Marginal (need +17)"]:::marginal

    GC ---|baseline| LC
    GC ---|baseline| RC
    LC ---|climate votes| CrossGreen
    RC ---|migration votes| CrossNat
Loading

Quality Gate

  • Grand-coalition alignment score calculated from ≥3 plenary votes in the session
  • Every bloc scenario cites specific vote records (document refs + roll-call IDs)
  • Pivotal-actor Banzhaf index computed from actual vote data, not assumed
  • Coalition-fracture signals cross-referenced with detect_voting_anomalies output (severity labels match)
  • Scenario probabilities sum to 100%; each scenario has ≥1 concrete triggering vote
  • Seat arithmetic verified against EP10 distribution (EPP 188, S&D 136, etc.)
  • No speculation on "secret deals" or informal agreements without documentary evidence (speeches, resolutions, press statements)

⚡ Part 5 — Executive Brief (executive-brief.md)

Purpose

Produce the ≤90-second decision-grade briefing for editors, duty officers, and senior monitors. This is the BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) intelligence product that answers: "Should we publish this story? What's the lead? What's at stake?"

Input

  • synthesis-summary.md (provides canonical narrative)
  • significance-scoring.md (provides priority ranking)
  • coalition-dynamics.md (provides political arithmetic)
  • stakeholder-perspectives.md (provides actor positions)
  • risk-assessment.md (provides threat/risk scores)

Output — Required Structure

  1. Brief metadata block:
    • Brief ID (e.g., EB-2024-05-15-breaking-001)
    • Generated timestamp (UTC)
    • Scope (session/week/month)
    • Documents covered (count)
    • Overall confidence (🟦/🟩/🟧/🟥/⬛)
    • Publication recommendation (PUBLISH / ANALYSIS-ONLY / MONITOR / SKIP)
    • PIR relevance (primary PIRs addressed)
  2. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) — 2–4 sentences:
    • Lead with #1 DIW-ranked finding
    • Name principal MEP/group with country where relevant
    • State concrete action taken or vote outcome
    • Quantify impact (seats, budget, affected population, member states)
    • End with confidence label and top source
  3. 3 Decisions This Brief Supports — table format:
    • Decision (what needs deciding)
    • Who decides (role: editor-in-chief, duty monitor, analysis lead, etc.)
    • Deadline (timestamp or session reference)
    • Evidence (document ref or vote count supporting the decision)
  4. 60-Second Read — 8-bullet distillation using color-coded emoji markers:
    • 🔴 Top development — who, what, where, when; cite document ref
    • 🟠 Second development — named actor, quantified effect
    • 🟢 Positive development or win for democratic accountability
    • 🟡 Point of tension or ambiguity
    • 🔵 Data point — Eurostat / ECB / IMF (sole authoritative economic source) figure with year. World Bank appears for non-economic data points (health, education, social, environment, demographics, defence, agriculture, innovation, governance).
    • 🟣 Cross-reference — link to another document or cluster
    • 🩷 Emerging threat — political-threat-landscape dimension
    • ⚪ Carry-forward — only if relevant from prior session
  5. Top Documents Table (DIW-ranked) — top 5 items:
    • Rank · Document ref · Title (short) · DIW · Confidence · Status (adopted/pending/rejected)
  6. Risk & Threat Snapshot — Mermaid flowchart or table:
    • Top 3 risks from risk-matrix.md with Likelihood × Impact scores
    • Trigger events and session/date references
    • Source artifact and Admiralty grade
  7. Top Forward Trigger — single most important event to watch next:
    • Event description with session/date
    • What its outcome would change (specific hypothesis or finding)
    • Fallback indicator if primary event delayed
  8. Links — paths to synthesis-summary, significance-scoring, risk-assessment, coalition-dynamics, data-download-manifest, per-file-political-intelligence index

Required Mermaid — Risk & Threat Snapshot

graph LR
    R1["🔴 Grand-coalition fracture<br/>EPP-S&D alignment <60%<br/>L×I = 4×5 = 20"]
    R2["🟠 Article 7 TEU escalation<br/>Hungary rule-of-law<br/>L×I = 3×4 = 12"]
    R3["🟡 Trilogue deadlock<br/>Migration Pact stalled<br/>L×I = 3×3 = 9"]

    CONS["Watch next session<br/>plenary votes + trilogue"]

    R1 --> CONS
    R2 --> CONS
    R3 --> CONS

    style R1 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style R2 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style R3 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style CONS fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
Loading

Quality Gate

  • BLUF ≤4 sentences; no jargon; names principal actor with political group/country
  • 60-second read bullets complete (8 bullets) with emoji markers
  • Top 5 documents match significance-scoring.md rank order
  • Risk snapshot cites risk-matrix.md with matching risk IDs
  • Top forward trigger includes concrete observable event with ISO date or session reference
  • Publication recommendation justified by DIW distribution (P0 → PUBLISH; all P3 → SKIP)
  • Links section complete — no broken internal references
  • Overall confidence label reflects lowest-confidence critical finding (conservative aggregation)

✅ Synthesis-Layer Completion Checklist

Before advancing to Family C (Strategic Extensions), verify:

  • significance-scoring.md — DIW table complete, tier distribution computed, top rationales cite ≥2 sources each
  • synthesis-summary.md — executive summary (3–4 paragraphs), strategic finding cards (5–9), thematic Mermaid, coalition snapshot
  • stakeholder-perspectives.md — actor × issue matrix complete (8 groups + NI + Commission + Council), per-group narrative cards, position-spectrum Mermaid
  • coalition-dynamics.md — grand-coalition alignment score, bloc-formation table, pivotal-actor Banzhaf index, coalition-viability Mermaid
  • executive-brief.md — BLUF (≤4 sentences), 3 decisions table, 60-second read (8 bullets), top-5 documents, risk snapshot Mermaid, forward trigger
  • Every file cites ≥3 primary EP sources (document refs, vote records, speeches) with Admiralty grades
  • Every file includes ≥1 color-coded Mermaid diagram using Hack23 canonical palette + EP political-group colors
  • Confidence labels distributed realistically (expect 🟧 MODERATE for forward-looking claims; 🟦 VERY HIGH for vote-record facts)
  • Political-group neutrality maintained — no group receives default favorable/unfavorable framing
  • All EP policy terms glossed on first use (spitzenkandidaten, trilogue, Article 7 TEU, etc.)
  • Coalition arithmetic uses verified EP10 seat counts (EPP 188, S&D 136, Renew 77, etc.)

🔗 Template Bindings

Template Methodology Section Depth Floor (lines)
analysis/templates/significance-scoring.md Part 1 105 (breaking)
analysis/templates/synthesis-summary.md Part 2 205 (breaking)
analysis/templates/stakeholder-perspectives.md Part 3 200 (breaking)
analysis/templates/coalition-dynamics.md Part 4 135 (breaking)
analysis/templates/executive-brief.md Part 5 100 (breaking)

See artifact-catalog.md for full template-to-methodology mapping.

📐 Cross-References to Other Methodologies

🔐 ISMS Alignment

Control How This Methodology Satisfies It Verification
ISO 27001 A.5.10 (Appropriate use of information) Only public EP data via MCP; no leaked documents; no personal-life profiling Manifests cite public EP Open Data Portal endpoints
ISO 27001 A.5.12 (Classification) DIW tier assignment = classification per document; P0/P1/P2/P3 drives access/distribution Every significance-scoring.md file includes tier distribution
ISO 27001 A.5.14 (Information transfer) Synthesis products cite source artifacts with full provenance chain Every finding card cites ≥3 primary sources with Admiralty grades
ISO 27001 A.5.34 (Privacy / PII) MEPs analyzed only in public parliamentary role; Eurobarometer aggregates only; no voter-file profiling Stakeholder-perspectives.md limited to group/delegation positions
NIST CSF ID.AM-5 (Resources prioritized by classification) P0/P1 trigger full Family C/D templates; P2/P3 synthesis-only Artifact-catalog.md maps tier → template set
NIST CSF PR.IP-9 (Response/recovery plans) Cross-references support dependency mapping for incident response Cross-reference-map.md links documents/actors/themes
CIS 3.2 (Inventory of data) Each synthesis file = one inventory record with provenance Data-download-manifest.md + analysis-index.md
GDPR Art. 5(1)(a)(b)(c) Purpose limitation (democratic transparency), data minimization (public data only), accuracy (EP MCP verified) Methodology footer in every file declares data sources and limits
NIS2 Art. 21 (Cybersecurity risk management) No citizen surveillance; no non-public data collection; only official EP sources OSINT scope enforcement per osint-tradecraft-standards.md §5.2

📄 Document Control

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

Generated following EU Parliament Monitor Synthesis & Scoring Methodology v1.0 — Stage B.7 Core Synthesis Layer.