Skip to content

per-file-political-intelligence.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
524 lines (410 loc) · 30.4 KB

per-file-political-intelligence.md

File metadata and controls

524 lines (410 loc) · 30.4 KB

Hack23 Logo

🔍 Per-File Political Intelligence Analysis Template

📊 Deep AI-Driven Multi-Framework Analysis for Individual Parliamentary Documents
🎯 SWOT · Risk · Attack Trees · Kill Chain · Stakeholder · Strategic Implications

Owner Version Effective Date Classification

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 2.5 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-25 (UTC)
🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

📌 Template Instructions: This template is for per-file analysis. For each data file downloaded via MCP, the AI agent produces one analysis markdown file stored as {id}-analysis.md in the workflow's isolated folder. AI MUST read analysis/methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md (v5.0) before analyzing; consult other methodology guides only when needed for the current analysis step.

Output path: analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/documents/{dok_id}-analysis.md

The AI agent performs ALL analysis. Scripts download data; AI reads methodologies; AI produces genuine intelligence analysis based on the actual content of each document.

🚨 Anti-Pattern Warning: The following patterns indicate scripted/shallow content and are REJECTED:

  • "_No strengths identified_" or "_No weaknesses identified_" — empty SWOT quadrants
  • "this document requires assessment of policy execution" — generic boilerplate
  • "this document warrants scrutiny for alignment with citizen welfare" — template filler
  • Any analysis that could be written WITHOUT reading the actual document data
  • Analysis with 0 cross-references to other documents or MCP data
  • Analysis with 0 named politicians/parties
  • Analysis that merely restates the document title as a "finding"

MUST include: ≥3 evidence points with dok_id, ≥1 color-coded Mermaid diagram (classification tree, risk matrix, stakeholder map, or threat taxonomy — at least one is MANDATORY), multi-framework analysis (SWOT + at least one of: Risk, Attack Tree, Kill Chain), named actors with party affiliations, forward indicators.

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

Slot Value
Owning methodology per-document-methodology.md
Owning gate check Check 2 (per-doc coverage) — see 05-analysis-gate.md
Required inputs get_dokument for one dok_id
Horizon band per-doc (per scripts/horizon-context.ts)
Output family Family E — Per-Document
Aggregation order appended (alphabetical, after canonical block) (see scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts)
Reader Intelligence Guide row generated from documents/{dok_id}-analysis.md (see scripts/render-lib/aggregator/reader-guide.ts)
Canonical evidence anchor | claim | evidence (dok_id / vote / MP intressent_id / primary-source URL) | retrieved_at | confidence | — every analytical claim row uses this schema.

Cross-reference: README.md §Template ↔ Methodology ↔ Gate-Check Matrix.

🔄 Tradecraft Context

Element Value
F3EAD Stage FIND / FIX / FINISH — locate the document in the corpus, classify it across 7 dimensions, and produce the atomic per-document intelligence record that Family A synthesis builds on.
PIRs Served [REQUIRED: list addressed PIRs from PIR-1..PIR-7] — at minimum PIR-3 (party-position drift) plus the PIR matching the document's policy domain (defence → PIR-7, fiscal → PIR-6, institutional → PIR-5, election-adjacent → PIR-4).
Admiralty Floor A1 for the dok_id itself (parliamentary primary source); B2 floor for analytic inferences derived from it; F6 not permitted.
WEP + ODNI Classification claims use deterministic language ("the proposition states X" / "the committee voted Y–Z"); forward-looking implications use WEP terms (likely, about even, unlikely) paired with 5-level confidence per political-style-guide.md.
Source Diversity Floor ≥1 primary (the document) + ≥1 corroborating secondary source for every P0/P1 implication; single-source implications must carry [unconfirmed] and ≤ MEDIUM confidence.
SAT(s) Applied Quality of Information Check; Structured Brainstorming; Key Assumptions Check; Cross-Impact Analysis (against same-day documents).
ICD 203 Standards 1 (objectivity), 2 (independent), 3 (timeliness), 5 (sourcing), 6 (logical argumentation), 7 (uncertainty), 8 (analytic value), 9 (alternative analysis).

See osint-tradecraft-standards.md for canonical F3EAD / PIR catalogue / Admiralty Code / WEP / SAT / ICD 203 definitions, and political-style-guide.md for tone, evidence-citation, and confidence-labelling conventions.

📋 Document Identity

Field Value
Document ID [REQUIRED: dok_id or file identifier]
Document Type [REQUIRED: propositions / motions / committeeReports / votes / speeches / questions / interpellations / government / worldbank / scb]
Title [REQUIRED: document title or descriptor]
Date [REQUIRED: document date or fetch date]
Riksmöte [REQUIRED if parliamentary: e.g. 2025/26]
Source MCP Tool [REQUIRED: e.g. search_dokument, get_propositioner]
Analysis Timestamp [REQUIRED: YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM UTC]
Analyst [REQUIRED: workflow name, e.g. news-evening-analysis]
Data Depth [REQUIRED: FULL-TEXT / SUMMARY / METADATA-ONLY — see ai-driven-analysis-guide.md §Data Availability Prerequisites]

🎯 Executive Summary

[REQUIRED: 3–5 sentences capturing the political significance. Intelligence-level analysis — not just what happened, but what it means for power dynamics, coalition stability, and democratic accountability. Include confidence label.] [VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW]

⚠️ Confidence Ceiling Rule: If Data Depth above is METADATA-ONLY, confidence MUST be LOW or VERY LOW. If SUMMARY, max is MEDIUM. Only FULL-TEXT documents may claim HIGH or VERY HIGH. See ai-driven-analysis-guide.md §Data Availability Prerequisites.

📖 Narrative (v3.2 — required for L2-Strategic+ depth tier)

When required: this subsection is mandatory when the document's DIW score places it at L2-Strategic, L2+ Priority, or L3 Intelligence-grade depth. For L1-Surface and clustered low-weight items it is optional. Apply political-style-guide.md §"Narrative-Voice Standards". The Family A synthesis-summary.md and executive-brief.md will pull from this subsection when this document is the day's #1 or #2 ranked finding.

Lede paragraph (80–140 words, one canonical lede pattern)

[REQUIRED for ≥ L2 — pick: hard-news / tension-contrast / scene-setting / significance-first.]

Body (1–2 paragraphs, total 200–400 words)

[REQUIRED for ≥ L2 — name three actors (sponsor / opponent / pivotal third) by word 200 with role + party + verb. Vary sentence cadence. Include ≥ 1 concrete sensory detail (committee room, time, exact phrasing of an interjection, page count of the tabled report). Tradecraft jargon must pay back within 2 sentences.]

Counter-narrative (40–100 words, signposted)

"There is a contrary read." [REQUIRED for ≥ L2 — named source whose framing of these same documents is genuinely different.]

📊 Political Classification

graph LR
    A[Document] --> B{Sensitivity}
    B -->|"🔴 RESTRICTED"| C[Constitutional / National Security]
    B -->|"🟡 SENSITIVE"| D[Policy Delivery Risk]
    B -->|"🟢 PUBLIC"| E[Standard Parliamentary]
    
    A --> G{Domain}
    G --> H["[REQUIRED: Primary policy domain]"]
    
    A --> I{Urgency}
    I -->|"🔴 CRITICAL"| J[Constitutional crisis — hours]
    I -->|"🟠 URGENT"| K[Formal response — days]
    I -->|"🔵 ELEVATED"| L[Monitoring — this week]
    I -->|"⚪ ROUTINE"| M[Standard processing]
    
    style C fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style D fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style E fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style J fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style K fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style L fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
    style M fill:#9E9E9E,color:#FFFFFF
Loading
Field Assessment
Sensitivity Level [REQUIRED: PUBLIC / SENSITIVE / RESTRICTED]
Primary Domain [REQUIRED: e.g. Migration (MIG), Defence (DEF), Economy (ECO), Climate (ENV), Justice (JUS), Health (HEA), Education (EDU), Foreign Affairs (FOR)]
Urgency [REQUIRED: ROUTINE / ELEVATED / URGENT / CRITICAL]
Significance Score [REQUIRED: 0–10]
Confidence [REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]

💪 SWOT Impact Assessment

How does this document affect the political landscape? Each entry requires evidence.

Quadrant Overview

%%{init: {
  "theme": "neutral",
  "themeVariables": {
    "quadrant1Fill": "#FF9800",
    "quadrant2Fill": "#2E7D32",
    "quadrant3Fill": "#D32F2F",
    "quadrant4Fill": "#1565C0",
    "quadrantTitleFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointFill": "#FFFFFF",
    "quadrantPointTextFill": "#000000",
    "quadrantXAxisTextFill": "#000000",
    "quadrantYAxisTextFill": "#000000"
  },
  "quadrantChart": {
    "chartWidth": 700,
    "chartHeight": 700,
    "pointLabelFontSize": 12,
    "titleFontSize": 18,
    "quadrantLabelFontSize": 14,
    "xAxisLabelFontSize": 14,
    "yAxisLabelFontSize": 14
  }
}}%%
quadrantChart
    title 🎯 Political Impact Assessment
    x-axis Government --> Opposition
    y-axis Risk --> Opportunity
    quadrant-1 🚀 Opposition Opportunities
    quadrant-2 ✅ Government Opportunities
    quadrant-3 🔴 Government Risks
    quadrant-4 ⚠️ Opposition Risks

    "💡 [REQUIRED: key finding 1]": [0.30, 0.70]
    "⚡ [REQUIRED: key finding 2]": [0.70, 0.30]
Loading

Government Coalition Impact

Quadrant Statement Evidence Confidence Impact
✅ Strength [If this document strengthens the government position — specific claim] [dok_id or evidence] VH/H/M/L/VL VH/H/M/L/VL
⚠️ Weakness [If this document exposes a government vulnerability] [dok_id or evidence] VH/H/M/L/VL VH/H/M/L/VL
🚀 Opportunity [If this creates a government opportunity] [dok_id or evidence] VH/H/M/L/VL VH/H/M/L/VL
🔴 Threat [If this poses a threat to the government] [dok_id or evidence] VH/H/M/L/VL VH/H/M/L/VL

Opposition Impact

Quadrant Statement Evidence Confidence Impact
✅ Strength [If this strengthens the opposition] [dok_id or evidence] VH/H/M/L/VL VH/H/M/L/VL
⚠️ Weakness [If this exposes an opposition vulnerability] [dok_id or evidence] VH/H/M/L/VL VH/H/M/L/VL
🚀 Opportunity [If this creates an opposition opportunity] [dok_id or evidence] VH/H/M/L/VL VH/H/M/L/VL
🔴 Threat [If this poses a threat to the opposition] [dok_id or evidence] VH/H/M/L/VL VH/H/M/L/VL

⚖️ Risk Assessment

graph TD
    subgraph "⚖️ Political Risk Matrix — Likelihood × Impact"
        R1["🔴 Coalition Stability<br/>L:[?] × I:[?] = [?]"]
        R2["🟠 Policy Implementation<br/>L:[?] × I:[?] = [?]"]
        R3["🟡 Budget / Fiscal<br/>L:[?] × I:[?] = [?]"]
        R4["📊 Electoral Impact<br/>L:[?] × I:[?] = [?]"]
        R5["🏛️ Democratic Process<br/>L:[?] × I:[?] = [?]"]
        R6["🌍 External / International<br/>L:[?] × I:[?] = [?]"]
    end
    
    subgraph "📊 Risk Score Tiers"
        T1["🔴 CRITICAL<br/>Score 15–25"]
        T2["🟠 HIGH<br/>Score 10–14"]
        T3["🟡 MEDIUM<br/>Score 5–9"]
        T4["🟢 LOW<br/>Score 1–4"]
    end
    
    R1 -.-> T1
    R2 -.-> T2
    R3 -.-> T3
    R4 -.-> T2
    R5 -.-> T4
    R6 -.-> T4
    
    style R1 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style R2 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style R3 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style R4 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style R5 fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style R6 fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style T1 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style T2 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style T3 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style T4 fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
Loading

Scoring Reference: Risk Score = Likelihood × Impact (product, not sum). Both are scored 1–5, giving a range of 1–25. Score tiers: 1–4 🟢 Low, 5–9 🟡 Medium, 10–14 🟠 High, 15–25 🔴 Critical. See political-risk-methodology.md for calibration examples.

⚠️ AI Instructions: Replace ALL [?] placeholders with actual numbers derived from the document data. The Mermaid diagram above is a TEMPLATE — when you fill it in, the node labels should show real scores like "🔴 Coalition Stability<br/>L:2 × I:3 = 6" and the dotted arrows should point to the correct tier.

Risk Type Likelihood (1–5) Impact (1–5) Score Assessment
Coalition Stability [1-5] [1-5] [L×I] [REQUIRED: specific risk statement]
Policy Implementation [1-5] [1-5] [L×I] [REQUIRED: specific risk statement]
Budget / Fiscal [1-5] [1-5] [L×I] [REQUIRED: specific risk statement]
Electoral Impact [1-5] [1-5] [L×I] [REQUIRED: specific risk statement]
Democratic Process [1-5] [1-5] [L×I] [REQUIRED: specific risk statement]
External / International [1-5] [1-5] [L×I] [OPTIONAL: EU, NATO, Nordic impact]

Overall Risk Level: [REQUIRED: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / NEGLIGIBLE]
Risk-to-SWOT: Any score ≥15 → add as SWOT Threat entry. Any score 10–14 → add as SWOT Weakness or Threat.

Anomaly Flags

[List any detected anomalies — unusual voting patterns, unexpected coalition breaks, procedural irregularities]

🎭 Threat Analysis (Political Threat Taxonomy)

Political threats mapped to the 6 democratic function categories. Severity: 1=Negligible, 2=Minor, 3=Moderate, 4=Major, 5=Severe. See political-threat-framework.md for full calibration table.

graph LR
    subgraph "Political Threat Taxonomy"
        NI["🎭 Narrative Integrity<br/>Disinformation"]
        LI["📝 Legislative Integrity<br/>Manipulation"]
        AC["🚫 Accountability<br/>Evasion"]
        TR["🔇 Transparency<br/>Suppression"]
        DP["⛔ Democratic Process<br/>Obstruction"]
        PB["👑 Power Balance<br/>Overreach"]
    end
    
    NI --> NI1["[If applicable: specific threat]"]
    LI --> LI1["[If applicable: specific threat]"]
    AC --> AC1["[If applicable: specific threat]"]
    TR --> TR1["[If applicable: specific threat]"]
    DP --> DP1["[If applicable: specific threat]"]
    PB --> PB1["[If applicable: specific threat]"]
    
    style NI fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF
    style LI fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style AC fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style TR fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
    style DP fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style PB fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
Loading
Threat Category Applicable? Threat Description Severity (1–5) Evidence
🎭 Narrative Integrity [Y/N] [Disinformation, false framing, misleading rhetoric] [1-5] [dok_id]
📝 Legislative Integrity [Y/N] [Policy corruption, undisclosed lobbying, manipulation] [1-5] [dok_id]
🚫 Accountability [Y/N] [Oversight evasion, KU obstruction, blame-shifting] [1-5] [dok_id]
🔇 Transparency [Y/N] [Information suppression, FOI obstruction, secrecy] [1-5] [dok_id]
⛔ Democratic Process [Y/N] [Parliamentary obstruction, filibuster, quorum games] [1-5] [dok_id]
👑 Power Balance [Y/N] [Executive overreach, bypassing parliament, concentration] [1-5] [dok_id]

👥 Stakeholder Impact Matrix

Six analytical lenses applied to this document. The AI must assess each stakeholder based on actual document content.

graph TD
    subgraph "📄 Document Impact Assessment"
        DOC["📄 This Document"]
    end
    
    subgraph "🏛️ Political Actors"
        GOV["🏛️ Government Coalition<br/>M + KD + L (+ SD)"]
        OPP["⚖️ Opposition<br/>S, V, MP, C"]
    end
    
    subgraph "👥 Society & Economy"
        CIT["👥 Citizens<br/>Public services, rights"]
        ECO["💰 Economic Actors<br/>Business, labour, fiscal"]
    end
    
    subgraph "🌍 External & Media"
        INT["🌍 International<br/>EU, Nordic, NATO"]
        MED["📰 Media<br/>Narrative, newsworthiness"]
    end
    
    DOC --> GOV
    DOC --> OPP
    DOC --> CIT
    DOC --> ECO
    DOC --> INT
    DOC --> MED
    
    style DOC fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
    style GOV fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF
    style OPP fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF
    style CIT fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF
    style ECO fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF
    style INT fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF
    style MED fill:#FFC107,color:#000000
Loading
Stakeholder Impact Level Key Assessment Confidence
🏛️ Government [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE] [REQUIRED: How does this affect government's position, agenda, and coalition stability?] [VH/H/M/L/VL]
⚖️ Opposition [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE] [REQUIRED: How does this create opportunities or challenges for opposition parties?] [VH/H/M/L/VL]
👥 Citizens [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE] [REQUIRED: How does this affect public services, rights, daily life?] [VH/H/M/L/VL]
💰 Economic [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE] [REQUIRED: Fiscal impact, business implications, labour market effects?] [VH/H/M/L/VL]
🌍 International [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE] [REQUIRED: EU compliance, Nordic cooperation, foreign relations?] [VH/H/M/L/VL]
📰 Media [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/NONE] [REQUIRED: Newsworthiness, narrative potential, public attention?] [VH/H/M/L/VL]

🗳️ Election 2026 Implications

Dimension Assessment Evidence
Electoral Impact [REQUIRED: How does this document affect September 2026 election positioning?] [Specific evidence from document]
Coalition Scenarios [REQUIRED: Which coalition configurations benefit/suffer from this policy?] [Evidence]
Voter Salience [REQUIRED: Which voter segments are most affected? By how much?] [Evidence]
Campaign Vulnerability [REQUIRED: Does this create campaign attack vectors for opposition?] [Evidence]
Policy Legacy [REQUIRED: Will this become an electoral asset or liability by Sept 2026?] [Evidence]

Overall Electoral Significance: [REQUIRED: CRITICAL/HIGH/MODERATE/LOW/NEGLIGIBLE]

Most Likely Narrative: [REQUIRED: How will this be framed in the 2026 campaign?]

🔮 Forward Indicators

What to monitor as a consequence of this document.

# Indicator Timeline Trigger Condition Watch Priority
1 [REQUIRED: specific future event or metric to monitor] [days/weeks/months] [what would trigger escalation] 🔴/🟠/🟡/🟢
2 [REQUIRED] [timeline] [trigger] 🔴/🟠/🟡/🟢
3 [OPTIONAL] [timeline] [trigger] 🔴/🟠/🟡/🟢

🔗 Cross-References

Related Document Relationship dok_id
[If related documents exist] [supports / contradicts / amends / supersedes / responds-to] [dok_id]

Same-Day Document Cross-Reference Table

AI Instructions: List all other documents analyzed on the same day for the same article type. This enables cross-document pattern detection.

# dok_id Title Document Type Significance Key Connection to This Document
1 [OPTIONAL: another same-day dok_id] [title] [type] [score] [How does it relate?]
2 [OPTIONAL] [title] [type] [score] [relationship]

Hack23 Ecosystem Cross-Reference

AI Instructions: When CIA platform data is available, cross-reference this document analysis with relevant CIA intelligence products (risk summaries, party analyses, election forecasts, etc.).

CIA Product Data Point Relevance to This Document
[OPTIONAL: e.g. cia-data/exports/risk-summary.json] [e.g. Coalition stability score: 62%] [How this document analysis relates to CIA data]
[OPTIONAL: e.g. cia-data/exports/party-metrics.json] [e.g. SD voting discipline: 94%] [relevance]

📊 Data Quality Assessment

Metric Value
Source Completeness [REQUIRED: Full text / Metadata only / Summary only]
Evidence Density [REQUIRED: N evidence points cited]
Temporal Currency [REQUIRED: Current / Recent (30d) / Dated (90d) / Stale (180d+)]
Analytical Confidence [REQUIRED: VERY HIGH / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / VERY LOW]

📂 MCP Data Files Used

List all data files from the analysis pipeline that were consulted to produce this analysis. This enables reproducibility and audit trails.

[REQUIRED: List all analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/data/ files consulted for this analysis]

# File Path Source MCP Tool Data Type Freshness
1 [REQUIRED: e.g. analysis/daily/2026-03-30/propositions/data/H901FiU1.json] [e.g. get_dokument] [e.g. proposition / motion / vote] [Current / Cached]
2 [REQUIRED: additional data file] [MCP tool] [data type] [freshness]
3 [OPTIONAL: additional data file] [MCP tool] [data type] [freshness]

✅ Quality Self-Check Checklist

Pre-commit validation — every item MUST be checked before finalising this per-file analysis.

  • Document Identity complete: dok_id, type, title, date, riksmöte, MCP source, timestamp, analyst all filled
  • Executive Summary written: 3–5 sentences of intelligence-level analysis (not document summary) with confidence label
  • ≥1 Mermaid diagram rendered: At least one color-coded Mermaid diagram present (classification, risk, stakeholder, or threat)
  • SWOT Impact Assessment filled: At least 2 quadrants (S/W/O/T) have evidence-backed entries for government or opposition
  • Risk Assessment scored: All 5 political risk dimensions (Coalition, Policy, Budget, Electoral, External) have L×I scores (not [?] placeholders)
  • ≥3 evidence points: At least 3 claims cite specific dok_ids or named evidence sources
  • Named actors: ≥2 named politicians/parties with party affiliations cited
  • Forward Indicators present: ≥2 forward indicators with timelines and watch priorities
  • Data Quality Assessment filled: Source completeness, evidence density, temporal currency, confidence all assessed
  • MCP Data Files listed: All consulted data files recorded with source MCP tool and freshness
  • No placeholder text remaining: Search for [REQUIRED — zero hits expected
  • No anti-pattern content: No "No strengths identified", no generic boilerplate, no title-only restatements
  • Election 2026 Implications present: All 5 dimensions assessed (Electoral Impact, Coalition Scenarios, Voter Salience, Campaign Vulnerability, Policy Legacy)
  • 5-level confidence applied: Confidence fields use VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW scale
  • Cross-references linked: Related documents and same-day cross-references populated

Document Control:

  • Template Path: /analysis/templates/per-file-political-intelligence.md
  • Output Path: analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/documents/{dok_id}-analysis.md
  • Version: 2.5
  • Effective Date: 2026-04-25 (UTC)
  • Key Changes v2.3: Added Election 2026 Implications section, 5-level confidence scale (VERY HIGH/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/VERY LOW) replacing binary H/M/L, improved differentiated per-document insights
  • Frameworks: SWOT, Risk, Attack Trees, Kill Chain, Diamond Model, Stakeholder
  • Framework References: SWOT.md, THREAT_MODEL.md
  • Methodology: ai-driven-analysis-guide.md
  • ISMS Alignment: ISO 27001:2022 A.5.7 (Threat Intelligence), NIST CSF 2.0 ID.RA (Risk Assessment)
  • Classification: Public
  • Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807)
  • Next Review: 2026-06-30

✅ Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklist (v4.4 — required)

Purpose: AI-FIRST principle requires a Pass-2 read-back-and-improve. After producing this artifact in Pass 1, re-read it end-to-end and verify each item below. Document any remediation in methodology-reflection.md §"Pass-2 audit log". Any unchecked ❌ box at the end of Pass 2 forces a Pass-3 rewrite of the affected section.

  • Tradecraft anchors honoured — F3EAD stage matches the artifact's role; PIRs declared in the §Tradecraft Context block are actually addressed in the body; Admiralty grades attached to every external source; WEP band + ODNI confidence on every probabilistic judgement.
  • Source diversity floor met — at least the minimum number of independent MCP sources required by the artifact's tradecraft block are cited; single-source claims are explicitly labelled [SINGLE-SOURCE — corroboration pending].
  • Evidence specificity — every quantified claim cites a dok_id (Riksdag), an SCB / IMF dataflow code, or a named external source with date; no "according to data" / "studies show" hand-waves.
  • Named-actor discipline — every political claim names ≥ 1 person (party + role + dated act/quote) or labels the absence ([diffuse — no named actor]).
  • Counter-narrative present — at least one explicit competing hypothesis, dissent quote, or framed objection appears in the body; "no opposition recorded" is itself a finding to label, not silence.
  • Election 2026 lens applied — the §"Election 2026 Implications" subsection (or equivalent) addresses electoral salience, coalition pressure, and forward indicators; not boilerplate.
  • No illustrative content shipped as fact — every [REQUIRED] placeholder is filled OR removed; every Example: block is clearly fenced or removed; no fabricated dok_id, vote count, or quote leaks into the final artifact.
  • Cross-references resolve — every [link](file.md) in this artifact points to a file that exists in the run folder (analysis/daily/$ARTICLE_DATE/$SUBFOLDER/) or to a methodology / template under analysis/.
  • Mermaid renders — every fenced ```mermaid block parses (no missing class definitions, no orphan nodes, no >40-node graphs that overflow viewport on mobile).
  • Line-floor check — artifact length ≥ the per-artifact floor in reference-quality-thresholds.json; shorter artifacts trigger Pass-2 rewrite, never a [truncated] note.