README.md

📚 Analysis Methodologies — Political Intelligence Framework

📊 Comprehensive Methodology Library for Riksdagsmonitor Political Analysis
🎯 Evidence-Based · Multi-Framework · ISMS-Compliant · AI-Driven

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 4.5 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-25 (UTC)
🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-07-25
🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

---

📚 Architecture Documentation Map

Document	Focus	Description	Documentation Link
Architecture	🏛️ Architecture	C4 model showing current system structure	View Source
Future Architecture	🏛️ Architecture	C4 model showing future system structure	View Source
Security Architecture	🛡️ Security	Current security implementation	View Source
Threat Model	🎯 Security	Threat analysis	View Source
Data Model	📊 Data	Current data structures and relationships	View Source
Flowcharts	🔄 Process	Current data processing workflows	View Source
SWOT Analysis	💼 Business	Current strategic assessment	View Source
Workflows	⚙️ DevOps	CI/CD documentation	View Source
Analysis Directory	🔬 Analysis	Analysis directory overview and structure	View Source
Analysis Templates	📋 Templates	34 template files producing 23 mandatory core artifacts (Family A 9 + B 2 + C 5 + D 7) + N Family E per-document + 4 analytical supplementary + 7 operational supplementary	View Source

---

🛡️ ISMS Policy Alignment

Policy	Description	Relevance to Analysis Methodologies
Information Security Policy	Organization-wide security governance and risk management	Defines risk assessment methodology adapted for political risk scoring
AI Policy	Responsible AI usage, transparency, and human oversight	Governs LLM-driven analysis: quality gates, bias mitigation, evidence requirements
Classification Policy	Data classification scheme and handling requirements	Classification guide aligns sensitivity levels with ISMS classification tiers
Secure Development Policy	Secure coding standards and SDLC security gates	Style guide and quality gates enforce structured, reviewable analytical output
Open Source Policy	Open source contribution and licensing governance	All methodology documents published under project license for transparency

---

🤖 How agentic workflows consume these methodologies

The 11 agentic news workflows in .github/workflows/news-*.md are the primary consumer of these methodologies. The authoritative workflow contract lives in .github/prompts/ — see .github/prompts/README.md for the full module catalogue.

Methodology	Read in Pass 1 (mandatory)	Read in Pass 2 (improvement)	Enforced by
ai-driven-analysis-guide.md	✅ role, DIW weighting, pass structure	—	05-analysis-gate.md check 1 (artifact presence)
per-document-methodology.md	✅ one {dok_id}-analysis.md per document	—	05-analysis-gate.md check 2 (per-doc coverage)
political-classification-guide.md	✅ produces classification-results.md	—	05-analysis-gate.md check 1
political-swot-framework.md	✅ produces swot-analysis.md + TOWS matrix	✅ tighten evidence tables	05-analysis-gate.md check 4 (evidence)
political-risk-methodology.md	✅ produces risk-assessment.md	✅ sensitivity & posterior probabilities	05-analysis-gate.md check 1
political-threat-framework.md	✅ produces threat-analysis.md	✅ kill-chain depth	05-analysis-gate.md check 1
political-style-guide.md	—	✅ tone, neutrality, evidence citations	Article Pass-2 review
strategic-extensions-methodology.md	✅ every run, all 5 Family C artifacts (scenario-analysis.md, comparative-international.md, devils-advocate.md, intelligence-assessment.md, methodology-reflection.md)	✅ scenario probabilities, ICD 203 audit	05-analysis-gate.md checks 1 + 7 (Family C structure)
structural-metadata-methodology.md	✅ cross-reference continuity contracts	—	05-analysis-gate.md check 1 (artifact presence)
synthesis-methodology.md	✅ produces synthesis-summary.md with DIW-weighted ranking	✅ lead-story justification	05-analysis-gate.md checks 1 + 5 (Mermaid)
electoral-domain-methodology.md	✅ Election 2026 lens paragraph	—	Article-generation mandatory section
osint-tradecraft-standards.md	✅ ICD 203 + Admiralty + WEP + SAT catalog + OSINT ethics + DIW alignment + PIR handoff	✅ ICD 203 audit, SAT attestation (≥10), DIW–Admiralty reconciliation	05-analysis-gate.md checks 4 (evidence), 5 (Mermaid), 7 (Family C structure), 8 (Family D horizons)

Upstream gh-aw documentation (link-out only — these methodologies own the political-analysis content; gh-aw owns the workflow runtime):

• Abridged: https://github.github.com/gh-aw/llms-small.txt
• Complete: https://github.github.com/gh-aw/llms-full.txt
• Agentic-workflows blog series: https://github.github.com/gh-aw/_llms-txt/agentic-workflows.txt

---

🎯 Purpose

This directory contains the authoritative methodology library for all political intelligence analysis performed by Riksdagsmonitor's AI-driven agentic workflows. Each methodology document defines the analytical framework, evaluation criteria, evidence standards, and quality requirements that AI agents MUST follow when producing political intelligence.

Key Principle: Scripts download data ONLY. AI performs ALL analytical content generation. These methodologies guide AI agents — they are never executed by scripts.

Core Principle: Every analytical claim requires verifiable evidence sourced from Swedish parliamentary open data. Opinion-based analysis, boilerplate summaries, and software-centric threat models (such as STRIDE, DREAD, or PASTA) are explicitly rejected.

Design Philosophy: The six methodologies form a layered analytical pipeline — classification provides the foundation, risk and threat assessments build the analytical core, SWOT synthesizes strategic implications, style standards enforce writing quality, and the AI guide orchestrates the entire pipeline with quality gates.

---

🔄 Methodology Pipeline — How AI Agents Apply Frameworks

The following diagram illustrates the sequential pipeline that an AI agent follows when processing an incoming Riksdag data file:

flowchart TD
    Start([📥 Riksdag MCP Data Received]) --> Read[📚 Agent Reads All 6 Methodology Docs]
    Read --> Classify[🏷️ Step 1: Classify Event<br/>7-Dimension Classification]
    Classify --> Risk[⚠️ Step 2: Assess Risk<br/>Likelihood × Impact Matrix]
    Risk --> Threat[🎯 Step 3: Analyze Threats<br/>Political Threat Taxonomy<br/>+ 3 Supporting Frameworks]
    Threat --> SWOT[💼 Step 4: Build SWOT<br/>Evidence-Based Quadrants]
    SWOT --> Write[📝 Step 5: Write Analysis<br/>Depth Level 1/2/3]
    Write --> QualityGate{✅ Quality Gate<br/>Score ≥ 7.0/10?}
    QualityGate -->|Yes ✅| Publish([📤 Publish Analysis])
    QualityGate -->|No ❌| Revise[🔄 Revise & Re-Assess]
    Revise --> Classify

    style Start fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Read fill:#4527A0,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style Classify fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style Risk fill:#E65100,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    style Threat fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style SWOT fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Write fill:#4A148C,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style QualityGate fill:#F57C00,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    style Publish fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Revise fill:#E65100,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF

Loading

---

📊 Methodology Relationship Map

This diagram shows how the six methodology documents relate to each other and feed into the final analysis output:

graph LR
    CG[🏷️ Classification Guide<br/>7 Dimensions] --> RG[⚠️ Risk Methodology<br/>5×5 Likelihood × Impact]
    CG --> TF[🎯 Threat Framework<br/>6 Political Threat Dimensions]
    RG --> SW[💼 SWOT Framework<br/>Evidence-Based Quadrants]
    TF --> SW
    SW --> SG[📝 Style Guide<br/>3 Depth Levels]
    SG --> AI[🤖 AI Analysis Guide<br/>Quality Gates]
    AI -->|Orchestrates all| CG
    CG -.->|Sensitivity feeds| TF
    RG -.->|Scores inform| TF
    TF -.->|Threats map to| SW

    style CG fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style RG fill:#E65100,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    style TF fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style SW fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style SG fill:#4A148C,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style AI fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF

Loading

---

📋 Methodology Summary Table

🎯 Start here: the AI-Driven Analysis Guide is the single, canonical entry point for every agentic workflow. It defines the 7-step protocol and the Family A–E output matrix that every methodology below feeds into.

🔄 Tradecraft anchors (v4.2): Every methodology now includes a Tradecraft Anchors block referencing the doctrinal standards in political-style-guide.md: F3EAD intelligence cycle stage, PIR/EEI mapping, Admiralty Code floor, WEP + ODNI confidence requirements, ICD 203 gate, SAT(s) applied, Collection Management Matrix (MCP tool → evidence → template), and Source Diversity Rule (≥3 primary + ≥1 secondary per P0/P1 claim; single-source = [unconfirmed]). See the style guide for canonical definitions.

Priority	Document	Key Content	F3EAD Stage	Dimensions / Frameworks	When to Apply
★ Start	AI-Driven Analysis Guide	7-step protocol, Family A–E output matrix, color-coded Mermaid palette, 5-level confidence scale, DIW weighting, quality gate	ALL	Evidence (25%), Depth (25%), Structural (20%), Actionable (15%), Neutrality (15%), ICD 203 (pass/fail)	Always read first — orchestrates every other methodology and names every output file with its template
☆ Tradecraft	Political Style Guide	Tradecraft anchors: F3EAD, PIR/EEI, Admiralty Code, ICD 203, WEP + ODNI, SATs, Collection Management Matrix	ALL	Writing standards, 4 depth tiers, evidence density, Mermaid conventions	Read second — defines all tradecraft standards referenced by other methodologies
🕵️ Tradecraft Canon	OSINT / INTOP Tradecraft Standards	ICD 203 (9 standards) · Admiralty Code (6×6 → 5-level confidence) · WEP / Kent Scale (7 bands, EN+SV) · SAT catalog (10 core + 5 supporting) · OSINT ethics (GDPR Art. 9) · DIW–Admiralty reconciliation · PIR handoff	ALL	Source grading, estimative vocabulary, technique attestation, ethics & scope, DIW alignment, cross-cycle continuity	Read alongside style guide — canonical reference for every evidence citation, confidence marker, and methodology-reflection.md §ICD 203 audit
Family A	Synthesis & Scoring Methodology	Step-by-step production of significance-scoring, synthesis-summary, stakeholder-perspectives, stakeholder-impact, executive-brief	ANALYZE→DISSEMINATE	DIW 6-dimension weighting, Confidence (5-level), Winner/loser quantification, 400–600 word brief budget	Every workflow — 5 Family A core files
Family B	Structural Metadata Methodology	Step-by-step production of data-download-manifest and cross-reference-map with SLA table and relationship taxonomy	FIND→FIX	Freshness SLA per source, Relationship taxonomy (7 edge types), Coordinated-activity detection	Every workflow — 2 Family B provenance files
Family C	Strategic Extensions Methodology	Step-by-step production of scenario-analysis, comparative-international, devils-advocate (ACH), intelligence-assessment, ⭐ methodology-reflection (VITAL run-audit)	ANALYZE	Scenario probability ≤ 100%, ACH evidence matrix, Peer-country benchmark, Key Judgments + PIR	Core — every run produces all 5
Family D	Electoral & Domain Methodology	Step-by-step production of election-2026, voter-segmentation, coalition-mathematics, historical-parallels, media-framing, implementation-feasibility, forward-indicators	ANALYZE→DISSEMINATE	Sainte-Laguë seat math, SCB segment cuts, Coalition arithmetic, 4-horizon forward indicators	Core — every run produces all 7
Family E	Per-Document Methodology	Step-by-step production of {dok_id}-analysis.md and {theme}-cluster-analysis.md with doctype-specific Mermaid taxonomy	FINISH	DIW 6-dimension scoring, Cluster decision rule (4 conditions), Citation format canon	Every workflow — one file per document or qualifying cluster
1	Political Classification Guide	7-dimension event classification, sensitivity levels, policy domain taxonomy, urgency matrix	FINISH	Sensitivity (4 levels), Democratic Integrity, Policy Urgency, Economic Impact, Governance Impact, Political Capital, Legislative Impact	Step 3 — every incoming Riksdag document is classified before analysis begins
2	Political Risk Methodology	Likelihood × Impact scoring, 8 risk categories, 5×5 matrix, cascading risk analysis	EXPLOIT	Policy, Legislative, Economic, Social, Security, Diplomatic, Coalition, Constitutional	Step 3–4 — assess political risk using calibrated scoring
3	Political Threat Framework	Multi-framework threat analysis: Political Threat Taxonomy + Diamond Model + Attack Trees + Kill Chain	EXPLOIT→ANALYZE	Narrative Integrity, Legislative Integrity, Accountability, Transparency, Democratic Process, Power Balance	Step 4 — apply threat analysis using political frameworks
4	Political SWOT Framework	Evidence-based SWOT with TOWS + cross-SWOT; confidence levels; 180-day decay; group-to-landscape aggregation	EXPLOIT	Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats — each with confidence (VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW)	Step 4 — synthesize classification + risk + threat into strategic SWOT assessment

Family A–E output matrix (authoritative definition lives in the AI-Driven Analysis Guide)

Family	Purpose	Produced by
📘 A — Core Synthesis	9 always-produced files (executive brief, synthesis, significance, classification, SWOT, risk, threat, stakeholder, folder README)	Every workflow
📗 B — Structural Metadata	2 always-produced files (data-download manifest, cross-reference map)	Every workflow
📙 C — Strategic Extensions	5 always-produced files (scenario, comparative-international, devil's advocate, intelligence assessment, ⭐ methodology-reflection — vital run-audit)	Every workflow
📕 D — Electoral & Domain Lenses	7 always-produced files (election-2026, voter-segmentation, coalition-mathematics, historical parallels, media framing, implementation feasibility, forward indicators)	Every workflow
📒 E — Per-Document	1 file per document (per-file-political-intelligence), plus cluster files for theme-grouped batches	Every workflow

---

🔀 Methodology → Template → Gate-Check Matrix (v4.6 — 2026-05-03)

🎯 Why this matrix exists. The goal (sharpen analysis/methodologies/) requires a single machine-readable cross-walk so the AI can route from "I am writing artifact X" → "the methodology canon for X is Y" → "the gate checks for X are Z." Use this table as the first stop when a Pass-2 audit asks "which methodology owns this file and which gate check would fail without it?"

Methodology file	Family / Scope	Owning artifact(s) (in analysis/daily/.../)	Owning template(s) (in analysis/templates/)	Gate check(s) (in .github/prompts/05-analysis-gate.md)
ai-driven-analysis-guide.md	All families — orchestration index	(routes to all 23 always-on artifacts)	(all templates)	All checks 1–11
artifact-catalog.md	All families — catalog	(documents every artifact, depth floor, Mermaid type, MCP source)	(every template)	Check 1 (existence) + Check 11 (supplementary)
synthesis-methodology.md	Family A	executive-brief.md, synthesis-summary.md, significance-scoring.md, classification-results.md, swot-analysis.md, risk-assessment.md, threat-analysis.md, stakeholder-perspectives.md, folder README.md	intelligence-assessment.md, executive-brief.md, swot-analysis.md, risk-assessment.md, political-classification.md, political-stride-assessment.md	Checks 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
structural-metadata-methodology.md	Family B	data-download-manifest.md, cross-reference-map.md	data-download-manifest.md, cross-reference-map.md	Checks 1, 10
strategic-extensions-methodology.md	Family C	scenario-analysis.md, comparative-international.md, devils-advocate.md, intelligence-assessment.md, methodology-reflection.md	scenario-analysis.md, comparative-international.md, devils-advocate.md, intelligence-assessment.md, methodology-reflection.md	Check 7 (Family C structure)
electoral-domain-methodology.md	Family D	election-2026-analysis.md, voter-segmentation.md, coalition-mathematics.md, historical-parallels.md, media-framing-analysis.md, implementation-feasibility.md, forward-indicators.md	All 7 corresponding Family D templates	Check 8 (Family D structure)
per-document-methodology.md	Family E (atomic evidence)	documents/{dok_id}-analysis.md, documents/{theme}-cluster-analysis.md	per-file-political-intelligence.md	Check 2 (per-document coverage)
per-artifact-methodologies.md	Families A + B + C + D + S (NOT Family E)	(reference — analytic moves per artifact)	(all templates except per-file-political-intelligence.md)	Checks 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11
analytical-supplementary-methodology.md	Family S (supplementary)	pestle-analysis.md, political-stride-assessment.md, wildcards-blackswans.md, quantitative-swot.md	pestle-analysis.md, political-stride-assessment.md, wildcards-blackswans.md, quantitative-swot.md	Check 11 (supplementary, blocking for year/cycle)
political-classification-guide.md	Step 3 — pre-analysis classification	classification-results.md (Family A) + classification headers in Family E	political-classification.md	Check 1 + cross-feed into Check 4
political-risk-methodology.md	Step 3–4 — risk overlay	risk-assessment.md	risk-assessment.md	Checks 1, 4, 5, plus tradecraftQualitySignals.wepBandRequired
political-swot-framework.md	Step 4 — SWOT synthesis	swot-analysis.md	swot-analysis.md	Check 4 (evidence per quadrant), Check 5, tradecraftQualitySignals.partyNeutralityArithmeticRequired
political-threat-framework.md	Step 4 — threat synthesis	threat-analysis.md	political-stride-assessment.md (supplementary)	Checks 1, 4, 5, plus tradecraftQualitySignals.wepBandRequired
political-style-guide.md	All artifacts — style canon	(every artifact)	(every template)	Check 4 evidence patterns + parseable banned-phrase block consumed by Pass-2 self-audit
osint-tradecraft-standards.md	All artifacts — tradecraft canon	(every artifact carrying confidence / source-grading / SAT attestation)	(every template)	tradecraftQualitySignals.{wepBandRequired, admiraltyGradeRequired, icd203BlufRequired, satDocumentationRequired}
imf-indicator-mapping.md	Economic data canon (PRIMARY)	Every artifact making an economic claim; session-baseline.md IMF tables	session-baseline.md, comparative-international.md	Economic-data contract enforcement (.github/aw/ECONOMIC_DATA_CONTRACT.md v3.0)
worldbank-indicator-mapping.md	Non-economic data canon (governance, environment, social, defence historicals)	comparative-international.md non-economic rows; voter-segmentation.md; implementation-feasibility.md	comparative-international.md, session-baseline.md	Provider-precedence enforcement (no economic codes)
reference-quality-thresholds.json	All artifacts — depth floors + AI-FIRST signals	(consumed by Pass-2 audit and gate Check 3 / Check 11)	(every template)	Check 3 (no stub tokens) + aiFirst.{citationDensity, bannedPhrases, pass2Attestation, wepLanguageCeiling, exemplarPolicy}

🪜 How to use this matrix during Pass-1 / Pass-2.

1. Identify the artifact you are writing in column 3.
2. Open the methodology in column 1 and read the AI-FIRST Methodology Card at the top.
3. Cross-check the template in column 4 for required sub-sections.
4. Run the gate check(s) in column 5 mentally before commit; surface any failure to methodology-reflection.md §Pass-2 audit summary.

---

📐 Methodology Architecture

graph TB
    subgraph "🏛️ Core Analysis Engine"
        GUIDE["🤖 AI-Driven Analysis Guide<br/><i>Master Protocol · entry point</i>"]
        STYLE["✍️ Political Style Guide<br/><i>Writing Standards</i>"]
    end

    subgraph "🗂️ Family Production Methodologies"
        FAMA["📘 Synthesis & Scoring<br/><i>Family A — 5 files</i>"]
        FAMB["📗 Structural Metadata<br/><i>Family B — 2 files</i>"]
        FAMC["📙 Strategic Extensions<br/><i>Family C — 5 files</i>"]
        FAMD["📕 Electoral & Domain<br/><i>Family D — 7 files</i>"]
        FAME["📒 Per-Document<br/><i>Family E — N files</i>"]
    end

    subgraph "🔬 Analytical Frameworks"
        CLASS["🏷️ Classification Guide<br/><i>7-Dimension Taxonomy</i>"]
        RISK["⚠️ Risk Methodology<br/><i>Cascading Risk Model</i>"]
        SWOT["💼 SWOT Framework<br/><i>TOWS + Cross-SWOT</i>"]
        THREAT["🎭 Threat Framework<br/><i>4-Framework Approach</i>"]
    end

    subgraph "📋 ISMS Reference Layer"
        ISMS1["📖 ISMS Classification"]
        ISMS2["📖 ISMS Risk Assessment"]
        ISMS3["📖 ISMS Style Guide"]
        ISMS4["📖 ISMS Threat Modeling"]
    end

    GUIDE -->|"orchestrates"| FAMA
    GUIDE -->|"orchestrates"| FAMB
    GUIDE -->|"orchestrates"| FAMC
    GUIDE -->|"orchestrates"| FAMD
    GUIDE -->|"orchestrates"| FAME

    FAME -->|"feeds"| FAMA
    FAMB -->|"feeds"| FAMA
    FAMA -->|"feeds"| FAMC
    FAMA -->|"feeds"| FAMD

    STYLE -->|"standards"| FAMA
    STYLE -->|"standards"| FAMB
    STYLE -->|"standards"| FAMC
    STYLE -->|"standards"| FAMD
    STYLE -->|"standards"| FAME

    CLASS -->|"invoked in"| FAME
    RISK -->|"invoked in"| FAMA
    RISK -->|"invoked in"| FAMC
    SWOT -->|"invoked in"| FAMA
    THREAT -->|"invoked in"| FAMA

    ISMS1 -.->|"adapted from"| CLASS
    ISMS2 -.->|"adapted from"| RISK
    ISMS3 -.->|"adapted from"| STYLE
    ISMS4 -.->|"adapted from"| THREAT

    style GUIDE fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px
    style STYLE fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px
    style FAMA fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#1B5E20,stroke-width:2px
    style FAMB fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px
    style FAMC fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#E65100,stroke-width:2px
    style FAMD fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px
    style FAME fill:#FFC107,color:#3E2723,stroke:#F57F17,stroke-width:2px
    style CLASS fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
    style RISK fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px
    style SWOT fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px
    style THREAT fill:#C2185B,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#880E4F,stroke-width:2px
    style ISMS1 fill:#EEEEEE,color:#212121,stroke:#BDBDBD
    style ISMS2 fill:#EEEEEE,color:#212121,stroke:#BDBDBD
    style ISMS3 fill:#EEEEEE,color:#212121,stroke:#BDBDBD
    style ISMS4 fill:#EEEEEE,color:#212121,stroke:#BDBDBD

Loading

---

📖 Methodology Catalog

🗂️ Reference & Meta Methodologies (v4.3 — Added 2026-04-23)

Document	Purpose	Consumers
artifact-catalog.md	Single source of truth for every markdown artifact produced by a news workflow (23 mandatory core + 4 analytical supplementary + 7 operational supplementary + N per-document = 34 templates). One row per artifact naming methodology, template, line floor, Mermaid type, MCP data source and gate check.	All agents, .github/prompts/04-analysis-pipeline.md, 05-analysis-gate.md
per-artifact-methodologies.md	Per-artifact Inputs / Analytic-moves / Evidence-rules / Anti-patterns reference. One §section per artifact — read only the sections needed for the current run.	All agents writing artifacts
worldbank-indicator-mapping.md	Article-type → non-economic World Bank indicator codes (social, health, education, environment, defence, agriculture, innovation, governance). Wave-2 WB↔IMF split.	comparative-international.md, voter-segmentation.md, implementation-feasibility.md, session-baseline.md
imf-indicator-mapping.md	Article-type → IMF WEO/IFS/BOP/FM/GFS codes — authoritative source for all economic context (macro / fiscal / trade / monetary / exchange rates). Vintage-tagged forecasts, T+5.	Every artifact with economic-context obligations
reference-quality-thresholds.json	Per-article-type × per-artifact minimum line-count floors enforced by 05-analysis-gate.md Check 3. Additive tradecraft signals (WEP / Admiralty / ICD 203 / SATs / DIW / neutrality) consumed by Pass-2 self-audit.	Gate, reference-analysis-quality.md, Pass-2 validators

These five files are the meta-layer — read them before opening any framework-specific methodology. They define what is produced, how it is measured, and where the data comes from.

🔭 Analytical Supplementary Methodology (v1.1 — Added 2026-04-23)

Document	Purpose	Templates governed
analytical-supplementary-methodology.md	Rules for optional deep-dive analytical templates that augment the 23 mandatory core artifacts with specialised lenses. Non-blocking in 05-analysis-gate.md. Defines composition rules (DIW weight vector, evidence citations, Forward-Indicator feed, TTP mapping) and per-template analytic moves.	pestle-analysis.md · political-stride-assessment.md · wildcards-blackswans.md · quantitative-swot.md

When to produce:

• PESTLE — event crosses ≥ 2 macro dimensions (policy with economic spill-over, tech regulation with EU exposure, etc.)
• STRIDE-political — election-adjacent events, integrity incidents, disinformation spikes, critical-infrastructure votes
• Wildcards & Black-Swans — long-horizon forecasting (monthly-review, election-year aggregation)
• Quantitative SWOT — decision-oriented memos requiring scored ranking (coalition negotiations, party strategy)

These templates never replace a core artifact — they always pair with and cite the canonical artifact they extend.

---

🤖 AI-Driven Analysis Guide — ai-driven-analysis-guide.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Master protocol governing all AI-driven political intelligence analysis
Scope	All agentic workflows, all analysis types, all output artifacts
Key Rules	Folder isolation · AI-only content · Multi-framework depth · Quality gates
Version	2.0

Core Principles:

• Folder Isolation: Every workflow writes ONLY to its own analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/ subfolder
• AI-Only Content: Scripts must NEVER generate analysis prose, SWOT entries, risk scores, or template content
• 15-Minute Minimum: Every deep analysis cycle must invest ≥15 minutes of AI reasoning time
• Quality Gates: Automated bash checks validate every analysis artifact before commit

---

🏷️ Political Classification Guide — political-classification-guide.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Multi-dimensional taxonomy for political document and event classification
Dimensions	7: Public Interest · Democratic Integrity · Policy Urgency · Economic Impact · Governance · Political Capital · Legislative Impact
Confidence Levels	HIGH (≥80%) · MEDIUM (60–79%) · LOW (<60%)
Version	2.0

graph LR
    DOC["📄 Parliamentary<br/>Document"] --> C1["🔍 Public Interest<br/>Sensitivity"]
    DOC --> C2["🏛️ Democratic<br/>Integrity Impact"]
    DOC --> C3["⏰ Policy<br/>Urgency"]
    DOC --> C4["💰 Economic<br/>Impact"]
    DOC --> C5["⚙️ Governance<br/>Impact"]
    DOC --> C6["🎯 Political<br/>Capital Impact"]
    DOC --> C7["📜 Legislative<br/>Impact"]
    C1 --> OUT["🏷️ Overall<br/>Classification"]
    C2 --> OUT
    C3 --> OUT
    C4 --> OUT
    C5 --> OUT
    C6 --> OUT
    C7 --> OUT

    style DOC fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px
    style OUT fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
    style C1 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00
    style C2 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C
    style C3 fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C
    style C4 fill:#4CAF50,color:#000000,stroke:#2E7D32
    style C5 fill:#2196F3,color:#000000,stroke:#0097A7
    style C6 fill:#C2185B,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#880E4F
    style C7 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000,stroke:#FFA000

Loading

---

⚠️ Political Risk Assessment Methodology — political-risk-methodology.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Systematic risk identification, scoring, and cascading impact analysis
Risk Categories	8: Policy · Legislative · Economic · Social · Security · Diplomatic · Coalition · Constitutional
Scoring Model	Likelihood (1–5) × Impact (1–5) = Risk Score (1–25)
Advanced Features	Cascading risk chains · Political Temperature Index · Risk velocity tracking
Version	2.0

graph TD
    ID["🔍 Risk<br/>Identification"] --> ASSESS["📊 Risk<br/>Assessment"]
    ASSESS --> SCORE["🎯 Risk<br/>Scoring"]
    SCORE --> CASCADE["⛓️ Cascading<br/>Impact Analysis"]
    CASCADE --> TEMP["🌡️ Political<br/>Temperature Index"]
    TEMP --> PRIOR["🏆 Risk<br/>Prioritisation"]
    PRIOR --> MITIG["🛡️ Mitigation<br/>Strategies"]

    ID -->|"8 categories"| CAT["Policy · Legislative<br/>Economic · Social<br/>Security · Diplomatic<br/>Coalition · Constitutional"]

    style ID fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px
    style ASSESS fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px
    style SCORE fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px
    style CASCADE fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px
    style TEMP fill:#C2185B,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#880E4F,stroke-width:2px
    style PRIOR fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
    style MITIG fill:#4CAF50,color:#000000,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
    style CAT fill:#EEEEEE,color:#212121,stroke:#BDBDBD

Loading

---

💼 Political SWOT Analysis Framework — political-swot-framework.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Multi-stakeholder strategic analysis for political events and policy decisions
Stakeholder Lenses	Government Coalition · Opposition Bloc · Citizens/Civil Society · Economic Actors · International Observers
Advanced Features	TOWS Matrix · Cross-SWOT Interference · Scenario Generation · Temporal Dynamics
Version	2.0

%%{init: {
  "theme": "neutral",
  "themeVariables": {
    "quadrant1Fill": "#2E7D32",
    "quadrant2Fill": "#D32F2F",
    "quadrant3Fill": "#1565C0",
    "quadrant4Fill": "#FF9800",
    "quadrantTitleFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointTextFill": "#000000",
    "quadrantXAxisTextFill": "#000000",
    "quadrantYAxisTextFill": "#000000"
  },
  "quadrantChart": {
    "chartWidth": 700,
    "chartHeight": 700,
    "pointLabelFontSize": 12,
    "titleFontSize": 20,
    "quadrantLabelFontSize": 16,
    "xAxisLabelFontSize": 14,
    "yAxisLabelFontSize": 14
  }
}}%%
quadrantChart
    title 🎯 POLITICAL SWOT STRATEGIC QUADRANT
    x-axis Internal Weaknesses --> Internal Strengths
    y-axis External Threats --> External Opportunities
    quadrant-1 SO Strategies (Leverage)
    quadrant-2 WO Strategies (Improve)
    quadrant-3 WT Strategies (Defend)
    quadrant-4 ST Strategies (Diversify)

Loading

---

🎭 Political Threat Analysis Framework — political-threat-framework.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Multi-framework threat modeling for democratic process threats
Frameworks	4: Attack Trees + Political Kill Chain + Diamond Model + Actor Profiling
Threat Taxonomy	6 Categories: Narrative Integrity · Legislative Integrity · Accountability · Transparency · Democratic Process · Power Balance
Threat Agents	6: Ruling Coalition · Opposition · External Actors · Special Interests · Media · Institutional
Version	3.0

⚠️ STRIDE is NOT used. The Political Threat Taxonomy replaces STRIDE with politically-native categories designed for democratic function analysis.

graph TB
    subgraph "🎯 Multi-Framework Threat Analysis"
        AT["🌳 Attack Trees<br/><i>HOW threats succeed</i>"]
        KC["⚔️ Political Kill Chain<br/><i>WHERE in lifecycle</i>"]
        DM["💎 Diamond Model<br/><i>WHO is involved</i>"]
        AP["👤 Actor Profiling<br/><i>WHY they act</i>"]
    end

    subgraph "🏛️ Political Threat Taxonomy"
        NI["📰 Narrative<br/>Integrity"]
        LI["📜 Legislative<br/>Integrity"]
        AC["🔍 Accountability"]
        TR["🔓 Transparency"]
        DP["🗳️ Democratic<br/>Process"]
        PB["⚖️ Power<br/>Balance"]
    end

    AT --> NI & LI & AC & TR & DP & PB
    KC --> NI & LI & AC & TR & DP & PB
    DM --> NI & LI & AC & TR & DP & PB
    AP --> NI & LI & AC & TR & DP & PB

    style AT fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px
    style KC fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px
    style DM fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px
    style AP fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px
    style NI fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
    style LI fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
    style AC fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
    style TR fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
    style DP fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
    style PB fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32

Loading

---

✍️ Political Intelligence Style Guide — political-style-guide.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Establishes writing standards for all political intelligence output
Scope	Article tone, evidence citation standards, Mermaid diagram requirements, confidence labeling, narrative-voice standards
Key Standards	Evidence tables (not prose) · dok_id citations · Color-coded diagrams · Swedish political terminology
v3.2 additions	§"Narrative-Voice Standards" (NEW) — 7 binding rules: (1) lede patterns (hard-news / tension-contrast / scene-setting / significance-first), (2) character density (≥ 3 named actors in first 200 words), (3) sentence-cadence rule (one short / two medium / two long per 5-sentence paragraph), (4) sensory specificity (≥ 1 concrete detail per 400 words), (5) no-jargon-without-payoff, (6) tension-and-resolution arc, (7) counter-narrative paragraph (the "but" rule). Pass-2 6-axis narrative self-audit rubric (lede / scene / character / surprise / takeaway / counter-narrative) with hard 18/30 floor; any single axis < 3 fails the gate. Tradecraft (WEP / Admiralty / DIW / ICD 203) sits on top of, never instead of, narrative rules.
Version	3.2

---

🕵️ OSINT / INTOP Tradecraft Standards — osint-tradecraft-standards.md

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Single canonical reference for professional intelligence tradecraft applied across every artifact in analysis/daily/$ARTICLE_DATE/$SUBFOLDER/. Anchors the source-grading, estimative-vocabulary, technique-attestation, DIW–Admiralty reconciliation, and PIR-handoff practices already referenced in prose by every other methodology.
Scope	Every analytical artifact (Family A–E) + every article generated from those artifacts. Mandatory reading during Pass 1.
Seven Pillars	§1 ICD 203 (9 ODNI analytic standards) · §2 Admiralty Code (6×6 matrix → 5-level confidence) · §3 WEP / Kent Scale (7 bands, EN + SV phrasing, 4 horizons) · §4 SAT Catalog (10 core + 5 supporting) · §5 OSINT Ethics & Scope (GDPR Art. 9, Offentlighetsprincipen) · §6 DIW Weighting Alignment (Admiralty floors per DIW tier) · §7 PIR Handoff (standing Riksdag PIR-1–7 + Tier-C continuity contract)
Key Concepts	Source grade [A-F][1-6] · 🟦/🟩/🟧/🟥/⬛ confidence · WEP bands (almost no chance → almost certain, each with Swedish equivalent) · SAT attestation in methodology-reflection.md (≥ 10 techniques) · Source Diversity Rule (≥ 3 primary + ≥ 1 secondary per P0/P1 claim) · Standing PIR catalogue (coalition stability, opposition cohesion, position drift, Election 2026 pathway, institutional risk, economic transmission, foreign-policy alignment)
Enforced by	05-analysis-gate.md checks 4 (evidence), 5 (Mermaid), 7 (Family C structure — ACH ≥ 3 hypotheses, ICD 203 audit), 8 (Family D structure — ≥ 10 dated forward indicators across 4 horizons). Tier-C additive gate (ext/tier-c-aggregation.md) enforces §7 PIR handoff.
Cross-References	Cited in prose by political-style-guide.md, ai-driven-analysis-guide.md, synthesis-methodology.md, strategic-extensions-methodology.md, electoral-domain-methodology.md. Cited by the template methodology-reflection.md and by 04-analysis-pipeline.md supporting-frameworks list.
Version	1.0

---

🗂️ Family Production Methodologies — one per Family A–E

These five methodology documents tell an agentic workflow exactly how to produce each output file, with step-by-step protocols, color-coded Mermaid, evidence rules, quality gates, and template bindings.

📘 Synthesis & Scoring Methodology — synthesis-methodology.md (Family A)

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Step-by-step production of the 5 Family A core synthesis outputs
Covers	significance-scoring.md, synthesis-summary.md, stakeholder-perspectives.md, stakeholder-impact.md, executive-brief.md
Key rules	DIW 6-dimension formula · Tier mapping (P0/P1/P2/P3) · 400–600 word executive-brief budget · Quantified winners/losers · Equity-lens cuts
v1.3 additions	Line-by-line DIW worked example (hypothetical wealth-tax prop, all 6 dimensions scored with rationale) · Winner/loser quantification rubric (Identity / Magnitude / Direction / Confidence / Counter-narrative columns + diffuse-impact escape hatch)
Gates	Per-output checklist; evidence-reconciliation gate between significance-scoring and per-doc Family E

📗 Structural Metadata Methodology — structural-metadata-methodology.md (Family B)

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Step-by-step production of provenance ledger + relational graph
Covers	data-download-manifest.md, cross-reference-map.md
Key rules	Freshness SLA per source (Riksdag ≤24h, SCB ≤90d, World Bank ≤24mo) · 7-edge relationship taxonomy · Coordinated-activity detection rule
v1.3 additions	All 7 atomic edge types enumerated with detection rules (amends, responds-to, references, co-sponsors-with, votes-with, conflicts-with, clusters-with) · Edge-type → cluster-type crosswalk binding cross-reference-map.md Mermaid edge labels to cluster taxonomy
Gates	Manifest reconciles with Family E doc count; every edge has dok_id pair

📙 Strategic Extensions Methodology — strategic-extensions-methodology.md (Family C)

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Step-by-step production of 5 always-produced depth products
Covers	scenario-analysis.md, comparative-international.md, devils-advocate.md, intelligence-assessment.md, ⭐ methodology-reflection.md (VITAL run-audit gate)
Key rules	Scenario probabilities sum to 100% · ACH ≥3 hypotheses · ≥5 peer countries · 3–7 Key Judgments with PIRs · Bias-audit quantification · methodology-reflection names ≥3 concrete improvements
v1.3 additions	"Family C is exactly 5 — not 6" close-out with explicit placement rationale: executive-brief.md is Family A (Strategic Synthesis + Executive Reporting), not Family C; methodology-reflection.md is the 5th member and the run-audit gate
Cadence	Core — every run produces all 5; depth per file adapts to DIW tier of the day's lead items

📕 Electoral & Domain Methodology — electoral-domain-methodology.md (Family D)

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Step-by-step production of 7 always-produced domain-specific analytical lenses
Covers	election-2026-analysis.md, voter-segmentation.md, coalition-mathematics.md, historical-parallels.md, media-framing-analysis.md, implementation-feasibility.md, forward-indicators.md
Key rules	Sainte-Laguë modified seat math + 4% threshold · Segment privacy (no sub-1000 cohorts) · Historical parallels ≤40 years with similarity score (or explicit no-precedent finding) · ≥10 forward indicators across 4 horizons
v1.3 additions	Sainte-Laguë worked example (modified divisor 1.4, 11-seat constituency walkthrough, 5 documented gotchas — divisor sequence, threshold interaction, level-out seats, partial-allocation rounding, MP-vacancy ripple) · Segment privacy threshold rationale (GDPR Art 4(1) singling-out / linkability / inference + statistical CI math + editorial restraint)
Cadence	Core — every run produces all 7; substance adapts (baseline context on light days, full scenario depth on P0-dense days)

📒 Per-Document Methodology — per-document-methodology.md (Family E)

Attribute	Value
Purpose	Step-by-step production of atomic per-document and cluster analyses
Covers	{dok_id}-analysis.md, {theme}-cluster-analysis.md (both use template per-file-political-intelligence.md)
Key rules	DIW 6-dimension scoring · Doctype-specific Mermaid taxonomy (prop→flowchart, mot→network, bet→flowchart, ip→timeline, SOU/Ds→flowchart, skr→flowchart) · Cluster 4-condition decision rule · Citation canon
v1.3 additions	Extended doctype taxonomy with 5 variants + binding detection algorithm: motion-package (multi-MP coordinated motions), fpm (shadow budget — full delta-envelope analysis), utskottsbetänkande-variants (explicit reservation handling), KU-anmälan (constitutional scrutiny), EU-nämnd (EU consultation). Each variant carries specialised Mermaid shapes; a generic mot template applied to a fpm misses the entire delta analysis.
Gates	Every dok_id in manifest has a Family E file; cluster files preserve per-dok_id differential notes

---

🔗 ISMS Reference Adaptations

The analysis methodologies are adapted from Hack23's ISO 27001/NIST CSF/CIS Controls ISMS framework. The reference/ directory contains mapping documents showing how cybersecurity risk concepts translate to political intelligence:

Reference Document	ISMS Source	Political Adaptation
isms-classification-adaptation.md	ISO 27001 A.5.12–A.5.13	Multi-dimensional political event classification
isms-risk-assessment-adaptation.md	ISO 27001 A.8.8, NIST CSF ID.RA	Cascading political risk assessment
isms-style-guide-adaptation.md	ISO 27001 A.5.37	Evidence-based political writing standards
isms-threat-modeling-adaptation.md	ISO 27001 A.5.7, NIST CSF ID.RA-3	Multi-framework political threat modeling

---

🔄 Methodology Integration Flow

sequenceDiagram
    participant WF as 🔄 Agentic Workflow
    participant DL as 📥 Data Download
    participant CLASS as 🏷️ Classification
    participant RISK as ⚠️ Risk Assessment
    participant SWOT as 💼 SWOT Analysis
    participant THREAT as 🎭 Threat Analysis
    participant SIG as 📈 Significance
    participant SYNTH as 🧩 Synthesis
    participant QG as ✅ Quality Gate
    participant ART as 📰 Article Generation

    WF->>DL: Fetch Riksdag/Regeringen data
    DL->>CLASS: Raw documents + metadata
    
    Note over CLASS,THREAT: AI performs ALL analysis<br/>(never scripted)
    
    CLASS->>RISK: Classification results
    CLASS->>SWOT: Document classification
    CLASS->>THREAT: Document classification
    
    par Parallel Analysis
        RISK->>SIG: Risk scores + cascading analysis
        SWOT->>SIG: SWOT matrices + TOWS
        THREAT->>SIG: Threat profiles + kill chains
    end
    
    SIG->>SYNTH: Significance scores
    SYNTH->>QG: Synthesis summary
    
    QG-->>QG: Validate structure,<br/>evidence, Mermaid,<br/>confidence, citations
    QG->>ART: Approved analysis
    ART->>WF: HTML article + translations

    Note over QG: Quality gate checks:<br/>✓ Evidence tables<br/>✓ Mermaid diagrams<br/>✓ dok_id citations<br/>✓ Confidence labels<br/>✓ No stub content

Loading

---

🎯 Article-Type-Specific Methodology Selection

Different parliamentary document types require different analytical emphasis. This matrix maps which methodologies are PRIMARY vs SUPPORTING for each workflow type:

graph LR
    subgraph "🔴 Always Required"
        CLASS["🏷️ Classification"]
        RISK["⚠️ Risk Assessment"]
    end

    subgraph "🟠 Context-Dependent Primary"
        SWOT["💼 SWOT"]
        THREAT["🎭 Threat Analysis"]
        SIG["📈 Significance"]
        STAKE["👥 Stakeholder"]
    end

    CR["📋 Committee<br/>Reports"] -->|"PRIMARY"| SWOT
    CR -->|"PRIMARY"| THREAT
    PR["📜 Propositions"] -->|"PRIMARY"| RISK
    PR -->|"PRIMARY"| STAKE
    MO["✊ Motions"] -->|"PRIMARY"| SWOT
    MO -->|"PRIMARY"| SIG
    IP["❓ Interpellations"] -->|"PRIMARY"| THREAT
    IP -->|"PRIMARY"| STAKE

    style CR fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
    style PR fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px
    style MO fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px
    style IP fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px
    style CLASS fill:#9E9E9E,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#616161,stroke-width:2px
    style RISK fill:#9E9E9E,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#616161,stroke-width:2px
    style SWOT fill:#FFC107,color:#000000,stroke:#FFA000,stroke-width:2px
    style THREAT fill:#C2185B,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#880E4F,stroke-width:2px
    style SIG fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px
    style STAKE fill:#2196F3,color:#000000,stroke:#0097A7,stroke-width:2px

Loading

Article Type	Classification	Risk	SWOT	Threat	Significance	Stakeholder	Unique Focus
Committee Reports	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	Voting splits, reservation analysis, committee composition effects
Propositions	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	Legislative pipeline stage, budget impact, policy domain cascading effects
Motions	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	Opposition strategy patterns, signalverdi, cross-party co-sponsorship
Interpellations	✅	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	Minister accountability scoring, response quality, evasion detection
Evening Analysis	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	✅	Daily political pulse, vote results, debate intensity metrics
Realtime Monitor	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	Breaking event urgency, political temperature spike detection
Weekly Review	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	✅	Cross-type trend detection, week-over-week pattern shifts
Week Ahead	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	Prospective risk landscape, scheduled debates, expected vote outcomes
Monthly Review	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	Legislative throughput, party productivity, government scorecard
Month Ahead	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	🔴 PRIMARY	✅	✅	Strategic political calendar, major policy decision forecast

Reading the matrix: ✅ = always required for all types. 🔴 PRIMARY = the methodology that should receive the most analytical depth and word count for this article type. Each workflow must apply ALL methodologies but allocate more time and depth to PRIMARY ones.

---

📏 Quality Standards

Every analysis artifact produced using these methodologies MUST contain:

Requirement	Description	Enforcement
Evidence Tables	Structured tables with dok_id citations, not free-form prose	Quality gate Check 1
Mermaid Diagrams	≥1 color-coded diagram with style directives per analysis file	Quality gate Check 2
Confidence Labels	HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW confidence on every assessment	Quality gate Check 3
dok_id Citations	Every claim linked to specific parliamentary document IDs	Quality gate Check 4
Template Compliance	Must follow the corresponding template in analysis/templates/	Quality gate Check 5
No Stub Content	No boilerplate phrases like "No strengths identified"	Quality gate Check 6

---

✅ Quality Gate Requirements

All analysis produced under these methodologies must meet the following minimum quality requirements before publication:

Weighted Quality Score (Minimum 7.0/10)

Dimension	Weight	Criteria	Fail Indicators
Evidence	25%	Every claim cites Riksdag MCP data; confidence levels stated; no opinion-only entries	Uncited claims, missing confidence, assertions without data
Depth	25%	Appropriate depth level (L1/L2/L3) applied; word count within range; citation count met	Wrong depth level, under minimum citations, superficial coverage
Structural	20%	Hack23 header present; metadata complete; Mermaid diagram included; structured tables used	Missing header, no diagram, placeholder content, broken formatting
Actionable	15%	Analysis includes concrete implications; stakeholder impact identified; forward-looking recommendations	Purely descriptive without implications, no stakeholder analysis
Neutrality	15%	Balanced perspective; no partisan framing; multiple viewpoints acknowledged; factual tone	One-sided framing, loaded language, missing counter-perspectives

Structural Checklist

• Hack23 header with metadata (Owner, Version, Date, Classification)
• At least one color-coded Mermaid diagram
• Classification completed across all 7 dimensions
• SWOT with ≥2 evidence-based entries per quadrant
• Risk score calculated using 5×5 Likelihood × Impact matrix
• Threat analysis using Political Threat Taxonomy (not STRIDE/DREAD/PASTA)
• Appropriate depth level selected and word/citation counts met
• Significance score (1–10) with justification

---

🌳 Methodology Selection Decision Tree

Use this flowchart to determine which methodology to apply for a given analytical task:

flowchart TD
    Start([🎯 New Analysis Task]) --> Q1{What is the<br/>primary need?}

    Q1 -->|Categorize a Riksdag event| CG[🏷️ Classification Guide<br/>Apply 7 dimensions]
    Q1 -->|Quantify political risk| RM[⚠️ Risk Methodology<br/>Likelihood × Impact]
    Q1 -->|Identify political threats| TF[🎯 Threat Framework<br/>6 Political Threat Dimensions]
    Q1 -->|Strategic assessment| SW[💼 SWOT Framework<br/>Evidence-based quadrants]
    Q1 -->|Write analysis article| SG[📝 Style Guide<br/>Select depth level]
    Q1 -->|Full pipeline analysis| AI[🤖 AI Analysis Guide<br/>Orchestrate all frameworks]

    CG --> Q2{Severity ≥ HIGH?}
    Q2 -->|Yes| RM
    Q2 -->|No| SG

    RM --> Q3{Risk Score ≥ 10?}
    Q3 -->|Yes| TF
    Q3 -->|No| SW

    TF --> SW
    SW --> SG
    SG --> AI

    AI --> Gate{Quality Gate<br/>≥ 7.0/10?}
    Gate -->|✅ Pass| Done([✅ Analysis Complete])
    Gate -->|❌ Fail| Revise[🔄 Revise from<br/>Weakest Dimension]
    Revise --> Q1

    style Start fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Q1 fill:#F57C00,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style CG fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style RM fill:#E65100,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    style TF fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style SW fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style SG fill:#4A148C,stroke:#311B92,color:#FFFFFF
    style AI fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style Q2 fill:#F57C00,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style Q3 fill:#F57C00,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style Gate fill:#F57C00,stroke:#E65100,color:#000000
    style Done fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style Revise fill:#E65100,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF

Loading

---

✅ Required Practices — What Every Analysis Delivers

Every methodology produces output that satisfies these ten positive standards. Each row states the practice, why it raises quality, and where the protocol enforces it.

Practice	Why it raises quality	Where enforced
Use the Political Threat Taxonomy (6 dimensions: authoritarian tendencies, corruption, institutional capture, information manipulation, violence/intimidation, external interference)	Political intelligence needs a political model, not a software one	political-threat-framework.md
Every paragraph cites evidence — one Riksdag data citation, vote count, named actor, or primary URL per paragraph	Evidence density is the single strongest predictor of downstream credibility	ai-driven-analysis-guide.md Step 4 & Quality Gate
Assign a 5-level confidence label (VERY LOW / LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / VERY HIGH) to every analytical claim	Confidence makes claims evaluable and reversible	ai-driven-analysis-guide.md § 5-Level Confidence Scale
Pair tables with narrative interpretation — a short prose paragraph above or below every data table	Narrative converts data into intelligence	All templates
Source every opinion from MCP data — link to search_voteringar, get_betankanden, SCB, World Bank, or IMF queries	Opinions sourced to authoritative data defend against accusations of bias	Templates + political-style-guide.md
Populate Mermaid values from MCP tool output — vote counts, poll figures, SEK sums, years	Data-driven diagrams stay current automatically	ai-driven-analysis-guide.md § Color-Coded Mermaid
Apply all 7 classification dimensions for every P0/P1 document — each dimension scored independently	Multi-dimensional classification catches complex documents	political-classification-guide.md
Re-verify SWOT entries within 180 days — each entry carries its last-verified date	180-day freshness prevents stale narratives	political-swot-framework.md decay rule
Include stakeholder impact — affected parties, opposition blocs, committees, citizen groups	Actionable intelligence names who is affected and how	Family A stakeholder-perspectives.md
Structure content for 14-language translation — complete sentences, defined terms, no idioms	The platform serves 14 audiences; clear source text translates cleanly	political-style-guide.md + language-expertise skill

---

🔒 ISMS Compliance Framework Mapping

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

Control	Title	Methodology Relevance
A.5.1	Policies for information security	All methodologies align with Hack23 ISMS policy framework
A.5.10	Acceptable use of information	Classification guide defines sensitivity-based data handling
A.5.33	Protection of records	Style guide enforces evidence citation and audit trail
A.8.3	Information access restriction	Sensitivity levels (PUBLIC/SENSITIVE/RESTRICTED) gate access
A.8.10	Information deletion	180-day SWOT decay rule ensures stale data is removed
A.8.28	Secure coding	AI analysis guide enforces structured, reviewable output with quality gates

NIST CSF 2.0 Functions

Function	Relevance to Methodologies
Identify (ID)	Classification guide identifies and categorizes Riksdag events by sensitivity and impact
Protect (PR)	Style guide protects analytical quality through evidence requirements and anti-patterns
Detect (DE)	Threat framework detects political threats across 6 dimensions using multiple analytical models
Respond (RS)	Risk methodology provides quantified risk scores enabling proportionate response
Recover (RC)	SWOT framework supports strategic recovery planning through forward-looking opportunity analysis

CIS Controls v8.1

Control	Title	Methodology Relevance
Control 1	Inventory and Control of Enterprise Assets	Classification guide inventories and categorizes all Riksdag data assets
Control 3	Data Protection	Sensitivity levels enforce appropriate handling for each data classification
Control 8	Audit Log Management	AI analysis guide requires documented quality gate assessments (audit trail)
Control 14	Security Awareness and Skills Training	Methodology documents serve as training material for AI agents and analysts
Control 16	Application Software Security	Quality gates enforce structured, validated analytical output

---

📰 Workflow-Specific Analytical Approach

Each agentic workflow applies the 6 methodologies with unique emphasis tailored to its article type:

flowchart TD
    subgraph "🏷️ Classification"
        CG2["Political Classification Guide"]
    end
    subgraph "⚠️ Risk"
        RM2["Risk Methodology"]
    end
    subgraph "🎯 Threat"
        TF2["Political Threat Framework"]
    end
    subgraph "💼 SWOT"
        SW2["SWOT Framework"]
    end

    subgraph "📰 Workflow Article Types"
        CR2["📋 Committee Reports\n= CG + SWOT primary"]
        PR2["📜 Propositions\n= RISK + STAKE primary"]
        MO2["✊ Motions\n= SWOT + SIG primary"]
        IP2["❓ Interpellations\n= THREAT + STAKE primary"]
        EV2["🌙 Evening Analysis\n= SWOT + ALL primary"]
        WR2["📊 Weekly Review\n= CG + SWOT primary"]
        MR2["📈 Monthly Review\n= ALL primary"]
    end

    CG2 --> CR2 & MO2 & WR2
    RM2 --> PR2 & EV2 & MR2
    TF2 --> IP2 & MR2
    SW2 --> CR2 & MO2 & EV2 & WR2 & MR2

    style CG2 fill:#00695C,stroke:#004D40,color:#FFFFFF
    style RM2 fill:#E65100,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    style TF2 fill:#B71C1C,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF
    style SW2 fill:#1B5E20,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    style CR2 fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF
    style PR2 fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    style MO2 fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,color:#FFFFFF
    style IP2 fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF
    style EV2 fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,color:#FFFFFF
    style WR2 fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF
    style MR2 fill:#2196F3,stroke:#0097A7,color:#000000

Loading

Unique Analytics Per Article Type

Workflow	Primary Methodology Focus	Unique Analytical Requirements
Committee Reports	Classification (document type) + SWOT (coalition dynamics)	🏛️ Per-committee voting splits, reservation analysis, committee-to-policy-domain mapping
Propositions	Risk (legislative pipeline risk) + Stakeholder (affected populations)	📜 Procedure stage tracking; budget impact analysis; policy domain cascading effects
Motions	SWOT (opposition strategy) + Significance (signalverdi)	✊ Opposition strategy patterns, cross-party co-sponsorship, signal value assessment
Interpellations	Threat (accountability gaps) + Stakeholder (minister responses)	❓ Minister accountability scoring, response quality analysis, evasion detection
Evening Analysis	ALL methodologies at equal weight	🌙 Daily parliamentary pulse, vote results + debate intensity, party discipline metrics
Weekly Review	Classification (outcome categorization) + SWOT (trend assessment)	📊 Cross-type trend detection, week-over-week pattern shifts, political narrative arc
Monthly Review	ALL methodologies at equal weight	📈 Comprehensive legislative throughput, party productivity, government scorecard

Key principle: Every article type must produce analysis that is unique and specific to its focus area. A committee report analysis looks fundamentally different from a monthly review — different data sources, different methodology emphasis, different analytical depth.

---

📚 Related Documentation

Document	Focus	Link
Analysis README	Directory overview and critical rules	analysis/README.md
Templates README	Template catalog and usage guide	analysis/templates/README.md
Prompts v2	AI prompt library for analysis generation	scripts/prompts/v2/
WORKFLOWS.md	CI/CD and agentic workflow documentation	WORKFLOWS.md
ISMS-PUBLIC	Hack23 Information Security Management System	Hack23/ISMS-PUBLIC

---

🆕 v4.5 Methodology Content Completion (2026-04-25)

Surfaces the v1.3 / v3.2 methodology content additions made in Phases 2–4 of the library reconciliation. These are catalog-level changes — every methodology entry above now reflects the worked examples, extended taxonomies, and narrative-voice rules introduced in the underlying files.

📐 Family methodology v1.3 worked examples + extended taxonomies

• synthesis-methodology.md v1.2 → v1.3 — line-by-line DIW worked example (hypothetical wealth-tax prop scored across all 6 dimensions with rationale) + Winner/loser quantification rubric (Identity / Magnitude / Direction / Confidence / Counter-narrative columns + diffuse-impact escape hatch).
• structural-metadata-methodology.md v1.2 → v1.3 — all 7 atomic edge types enumerated with detection rules (amends, responds-to, references, co-sponsors-with, votes-with, conflicts-with, clusters-with) + edge-type → cluster-type crosswalk binding cross-reference-map.md Mermaid edge labels to cluster taxonomy.
• strategic-extensions-methodology.md v1.2 → v1.3 — explicit "Family C is exactly 5 — not 6" close-out with placement rationale: executive-brief.md is Family A, not Family C; methodology-reflection.md is the 5th member and the run-audit gate.
• electoral-domain-methodology.md v1.2 → v1.3 — full Sainte-Laguë worked example (modified divisor 1.4, 11-seat constituency walkthrough, 5 documented gotchas) + segment privacy threshold rationale (GDPR Art 4(1) singling-out / linkability / inference + statistical CI math + editorial restraint).
• per-document-methodology.md v1.2 → v1.3 — extended doctype taxonomy with 5 variants (motion-package, fpm, utskottsbetänkande-variants, KU-anmälan, EU-nämnd) + binding doctype-detection algorithm. Each variant carries specialised Mermaid shapes; a generic mot template applied to a fpm misses the entire delta-envelope analysis.

✍️ Style-guide narrative-voice extension

• political-style-guide.md v3.1 → v3.2 — added §"Narrative-Voice Standards" with 7 binding rules (lede patterns, character density, sentence-cadence, sensory specificity, no-jargon-without-payoff, tension-resolution arc, counter-narrative paragraph) + Pass-2 6-axis narrative self-audit rubric (lede / scene / character / surprise / takeaway / counter-narrative) with hard 18/30 floor; any single axis < 3 fails the gate. Tradecraft (WEP / Admiralty / DIW / ICD 203) sits on top of, never instead of, narrative rules.

🔄 AI-Driven Analysis Guide alignment (ai-driven-analysis-guide.md v6.5 → v6.6)

• Step 3 now cross-references the v1.3 doctype-variant detector + adds Narrative subsection requirement for ≥ L2 per-file artifacts.
• Step 4 cross-reference-map row links to the 7 atomic edge types in structural-metadata-methodology.md v1.3.
• Step 7 Pass-2 rewrite checklist gains 2 binding items: Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklist (10 items) and Narrative 6-axis rubric (18/30 floor).
• DIW section adds worked-example callout to synthesis-methodology.md v1.3 + Sainte-Laguë walkthrough in electoral-domain-methodology.md v1.3.
• Quality Gate Checklist gains rows 11–12 (Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklist completion + Narrative 18/30 score).

🧪 Cross-doc validation

• All 277 cross-document .md links resolve.
• reference-quality-thresholds.json v1.2 → v1.3 — legacy aliases renamed (classification-results.md → political-classification.md; stakeholder-perspectives.md → stakeholder-impact.md); executive-brief.md floors added to all 11 article-types; 0 ghost references.

---

🆕 v4.4 Library Reconciliation (2026-04-25)

Phase 1 consistency & contract reconciliation pass — surfacing accurate file inventory, IMF-first economic-data canon, and tradecraft-anchor parity across the library. No new analytical content; mechanical and small structural fixes only. Pass-2 deep improvements (Phases 2–5) are scheduled as separate sessions per the AI-FIRST 2-pass principle.

📊 Inventory reconciliation

• Methodology files: 17 .md + 1 .json (was reported as varying counts).
• Template files: 34 .md = 23 mandatory core (Family A 9 + B 2 + C 5 + D 7) + 1 Family E reusable + 4 analytical supplementary + 7 operational supplementary. Earlier "23 templates" wording referred to the mandatory artifact count, not the file count — both READMEs now disambiguate.
• Methodologies map of contents now correctly lists 5 Family C artifacts (was 6 — executive-brief.md was wrongly listed in Family C; it is Family A).

🌐 IMF-first economic-data canon (per ECONOMIC_DATA_CONTRACT.md v2.1)

• osint-tradecraft-standards.md — PIR-6 + Standard #4: IMF lifted to PRIMARY, World Bank reframed as non-economic residue.
• political-swot-framework.md — economic-context evidence row: IMF WEO/FM + SCB national accounts (was World Bank).
• ai-driven-analysis-guide.md — budget/fiscal MCP tool list: IMF added (was WB only).
• political-risk-methodology.md — economic-context inputs, statistical-data row, External→Budget cell: IMF lifted to primary.
• voter-segmentation.md — socio-economic controls now name IMF WEO + WB social/governance.

🛡️ Tradecraft anchor parity (Family A + E)

Tradecraft Context blocks (F3EAD stage · PIRs served · Admiralty floor · WEP+ODNI · Source Diversity floor · SATs · ICD 203 standards) added to the 7 Family A and Family E core templates that lacked them — now present on all single-type templates. Templates bumped accordingly:

• synthesis-summary.md v2.3 → v2.4
• swot-analysis.md v2.3 → v2.4
• risk-assessment.md v2.3 → v2.4
• threat-analysis.md v3.3 → v3.4
• stakeholder-impact.md v2.3 → v2.4
• significance-scoring.md v2.3 → v2.4
• per-file-political-intelligence.md v2.3 → v2.4

🔢 Library-wide version refresh

All 17 methodologies, 34 templates, both READMEs and the JSON thresholds bumped by 0.1 with Last Updated: 2026-04-25. Operational supplementary templates that previously lacked a version stamp now carry Template version: v1.1 · Last updated: 2026-04-25.

---

🆕 v4.1 Methodology Upgrades (2026-06-01)

All methodology guides were updated in v4.1 with the following cross-cutting improvements:

🗳️ Election 2026 Coverage

• ai-driven-analysis-guide.md v5.0: Mandatory Election 2026 lens with 5-dimension electoral assessment for ALL analyses
• political-classification-guide.md v2.3: Election 2026 urgency boost rules for pre-election period
• political-swot-framework.md v2.3: Election 2026 as mandatory SWOT dimension with electoral quadrant requirements
• political-style-guide.md v2.2: Election 2026 framing requirements with approved vocabulary and confidence standards

🎯 5-Level Confidence Scale

All methodology guides now use a unified 5-level confidence scale:

• ⬛ VERY LOW → 🟥 LOW → 🟧 MEDIUM → 🟩 HIGH → 🟦 VERY HIGH
• political-swot-framework.md: Updated decay table from 3-level to 5-level
• political-risk-methodology.md: Added confidence scale mapping + election proximity factor

📊 Mermaid Diagram Mandates

• ai-driven-analysis-guide.md v5.0: Specifies required diagram type per analysis context (flowchart/timeline/quadrantChart/mindmap for each scenario)

📋 Historical Comparison

• ai-driven-analysis-guide.md v5.0: Mandatory historical comparison with 3 time periods + precedents table for all synthesis analyses

---

📊 Hack23 AB — Political Intelligence Through Rigorous Methodology