Skip to content

electoral-domain-methodology.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
724 lines (561 loc) · 50.8 KB

electoral-domain-methodology.md

File metadata and controls

724 lines (561 loc) · 50.8 KB
Raw

Hack23 Logo

📕 Electoral & Domain Methodology

📊 Family D — Lens-Specific Analytical Depth
🎯 Current-cycle election · Next-cycle election · Voter Segmentation · Coalition Mathematics · Historical Parallels · Media Framing · Implementation Feasibility · Forward Indicators

Owner Version Effective Date Classification

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.4 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-05-01 (UTC) 🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-07-21 🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

🎯 AI-FIRST Methodology Card

🚦 Read this card before writing a single paragraph. It names the artifact this methodology owns, the gate check it satisfies, the evidence-density target it must hit, and the Pass-1 / Pass-2 discipline required by .github/copilot-instructions.md §5 (AI-FIRST Quality Principle).

Field Value
Purpose Family D — step-by-step production of the 7 electoral & domain-lens artifacts (election-2026, voter-segmentation, coalition-mathematics, historical-parallels, media-framing, implementation-feasibility, forward-indicators).
Inputs Family A synthesis; Riksdagen voting records; SCB segment cuts; Sainte-Laguë seat math; Statskontoret reports
Outputs All 7 Family D artifacts
Owning artifact(s) All 7 Family D artifacts
Owning gate check Check 8 (Family D structure: ≥ 10 dated forward indicators, seat-count table in coalition-mathematics, Statskontoret citation in implementation-feasibility when an agency is named)
Citation density target ≥ 1 evidence anchor per coalition row; ≥ 1 dated source per forward indicator; ≥ 1 SCB segment cut per voter-segmentation cohort
Banned phrases Enforced via political-style-guide.md §Machine-readable banned-phrase list
Threshold source reference-quality-thresholds.json → thresholds[articleType][artifact] (fallback defaults.coreArtifactFloor)

✅ Pass-1 checklist (creation — minimal viable artifact)

  • coalition-mathematics.md has a seat-count table with Ja/Nej/Avstår or party-to-seats mapping
  • forward-indicators.md has ≥ 10 dated indicators across the 4 horizon sections
  • implementation-feasibility.md cites statskontoret.se (or none found) when a recognised agency is named
  • Produce every required sub-section listed in the owning template
  • Add ≥ 1 evidence anchor (dok_id, vote id, named MP, or primary-source URL) per analytical claim
  • Apply the correct WEP confidence band for the run's horizon (72h / week / month / quarter / year / cycle)
  • Include ≥ 1 themed Mermaid diagram with style … or themeVariables config (where structurally meaningful)
  • Cross-link the relevant template under analysis/templates/ and the gate check it satisfies

🔁 Pass-2 checklist (read-back & improve — AI-FIRST mandatory)

  • Re-run Sainte-Laguë for any new poll vintage; show working in coalition-mathematics
  • Add ≥ 1 historical parallel with date + outcome to historical-parallels.md
  • Verify media-framing reflects ≥ 3 outlets across the political spectrum
  • Re-read the file end-to-end; flag every claim that lacks an evidence anchor and add one
  • Replace every banned phrase listed in political-style-guide.md §Machine-readable banned-phrase list with an evidence-anchored alternative
  • Tighten WEP language: never above likely without ≥ 3 cycle-aged sources for year/cycle horizons
  • Strengthen Mermaid (color-coded style … directives, themeVariables, ≥ 5 nodes where the structure admits it)
  • Add ≥ 1 second-order effect, cui-bono note, or counterfactual where the artifact admits one
  • Verify citation density meets the per-file target below and the gate's evidence-density rules

🟢 Exemplar (good — pattern-match this)

(forward indicator) "T+30 — H902FiU1 budget final vote (2026-05-22): lead indicator = Ja votes from L bench; expected baseline 16/16. Disconfirming evidence: ≥ 2 L abstentions → coalition stress. Source: kammarens kalender (riksdagen.se)."

🔴 Anti-exemplar (failure mode — never ship this)

(failure mode) "Future events may shift the political landscape. The coalition's stability remains uncertain." — no dates, no indicators, no dok_id, banned phrases.

🔗 Cross-links

🔄 Tradecraft Anchors

Element Value Reference
F3EAD Stage ANALYZE → DISSEMINATE This methodology applies domain lenses (electoral, historical, media, implementation, forward-watch) to enrich intelligence products
PIRs Served election-2026-analysis.md (current-cycle) serves PIR-6 (Election Integrity); coalition-mathematics.md serves PIR-1 (Coalition Stability); implementation-feasibility.md serves PIR-5 (Fiscal Trajectory), PIR-7 (Democratic Norms) See political-style-guide.md §PIR/EEI Catalog
Admiralty Floor Polling data requires ≥[B2] (named pollster, date, sample); historical parallels require ≥[A1] (official records from Riksdag archive) See political-style-guide.md §Admiralty Code
WEP Requirement election-2026-analysis.md (alias: election-cycle-analysis.md) seat projections with WEP probability; forward-indicators.md triggers with WEP likelihood; scenario probabilities must sum to 100% See political-style-guide.md §WEP + ODNI
ICD 203 Gate Standard 5 (customer relevance — forward indicators), 6 (logical argumentation — coalition mathematics), 9 (visual information — all files) See political-style-guide.md §ICD 203
SAT(s) Morphological (election-2026, coalition-mathematics); Outside-In Thinking (historical-parallels, voter-segmentation, media-framing); Premortem Analysis (implementation-feasibility); Indicators and Signposts (forward-indicators) See political-style-guide.md §SATs

🔀 Multi-cycle electoral lens

This methodology is cycle-parameterised. Two separate fields govern cycle-anchor semantics — they must not be conflated:

  • electionCycleAnchor (analysis/article-types.json → types[*].electionCycleAnchor) — the article-type registry field; one of current | next | both | none. Set per article type and consumed by workflows to decide which anchor(s) to generate.
  • cycleAnchor (scripts/horizon-context.ts → horizonContext(typeId, articleDate).cycleAnchor) — the date-derived active cycle; only current | next. Resolved at run time from analysis/article-types.json → electionCycles by activeCycleAnchor(articleDate) — returns next when articleDate falls inside the next cycle's start..end window, current otherwise.

Anchor enum

Field Value Meaning
electionCycleAnchor (article-type registry) current Article type is anchored to the in-progress mandate cycle
electionCycleAnchor (article-type registry) next Article type is anchored to the upcoming mandate cycle
electionCycleAnchor (article-type registry) both Dual-anchor run — produces artifacts for both cycles simultaneously; used during the ±30-day rollover window
electionCycleAnchor (article-type registry) none Article type does not use an election-cycle lens (e.g., realtime-monitor on a non-electoral event)
cycleAnchor (HorizonContext, date-derived) current articleDate falls before the next election anchor; in-progress cycle is authoritative
cycleAnchor (HorizonContext, date-derived) next articleDate falls on or after the next election anchor; upcoming cycle is authoritative

Swedish election-cycle anchor dates

Cycle ID Label Start End
tido-2022 Tidö Mandate (2022–2026) 2022-09-11 2026-09-13
post-2026 Post-2026 Mandate (2026–2030) 2026-09-13 2030-09-08
(future — not yet in registry) Post-2030 Mandate (2030–2034) 2030-09-08 (TBD)

The authoritative cycle registry lives in analysis/article-types.json → electionCycles. These dates are consumed by scripts/horizon-context.ts → activeCycleAnchor() and must not be hardcoded in any analysis template.

Rollover trigger

The cycle rolls over when ARTICLE_DATE is within ±30 days of the next election anchor. Activation is determined by the ext module's own shell predicate (comparing $ARTICLE_DATE against analysis/article-types.json → electionCycles.next.start), not by horizonContext() — workflows do not currently call tsx scripts/horizon-context.ts. The pseudo-code below illustrates the logic; the authoritative implementation is in .github/prompts/ext/cycle-rollover.md §1:

# Ext-module shell predicate (simplified)
DAYS_DELTA=$(( ($(date -d "$ARTICLE_DATE" +%s) - $(date -d "$ELECTION_DATE" +%s)) / 86400 ))
cycleRolloverActive = abs(DAYS_DELTA) <= 30

When active, the ext module applies the phased dual-anchor behaviour defined in §Cycle-rollover playbook below. It does not mutate analysis/article-types.json; electionCycleAnchor in the registry stays whatever the operator has set and is flipped separately (T+45 to T+60 via a CEO-approved Normal change).

📋 Cycle-rollover playbook (date-triggered)

Full procedure: .github/prompts/ext/cycle-rollover.md. The table below is an inline summary; always defer to the ext module for the authoritative runbook.

Rule Detail
Activation window ARTICLE_DATE within ±30 days of analysis/article-types.json → electionCycles.next.start
T-30 → T-1 Both anchors generated; next/ artifacts marked [provisional pre-election]
T+0 (election day) Emergency single-run via news-realtime-monitor; no cycle flip until results are locked
T+1 → T+30 Both anchors generated; current/ artifacts gain # 📜 Mandate retrospective H1; next/ upgraded from provisional
T+31 → T+45 Only next/ regenerated; current/ frozen as historical record
Filename rename rule Post-rollover, workflows write election-cycle-analysis.md (the cycle-agnostic name); election-2026-analysis.md remains a valid alias indefinitely via FILENAME_ALIASES in scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts. When both files exist in the same folder the aggregator de-duplicates by AGGREGATION_ORDER — election-2026-analysis.md appears first in that list, so the legacy filename is preferred at render time; write only one name per run to avoid the ambiguity
Carry-forward rule Mandate-fulfilment scorecard, KU reprimands ledger, coalition cohesion trajectory archived to analysis/cycles/<cycle-range>/; PIRs with inheritsCycle: true carry forward verbatim
PIR archival rule Cycle-scoped PIRs receive status: "archived", archivedReason: "cycle-rollover-<election-date>", and a successor where applicable; see ext module §4
Operator flip Registry flip (electionCycleAnchor in analysis/article-types.json) is a CEO-approved Normal change under Change_Management.md; typically T+45 to T+60 post-election once government formation is complete
Audit trail Every activation appends a row to analysis/cycles/rollover-log.md. Note: analysis/cycles/ does not exist in the repo yet — operators must mkdir -p analysis/cycles/ as part of the manual runbook (see ext module §5); automated creation is deferred to the planned scripts/cycle-rollover.ts

📈 Cycle-trajectory artefact

The 24th artifact for the news-election-cycle workflow is cycle-trajectory.md. It provides a multi-year trend assessment of Swedish political-economic trajectory across the full 4-year mandate.

  • Template: analysis/templates/cycle-trajectory.md
  • Produced by: news-election-cycle only — all other workflows must not write this file
  • Save path: analysis/daily/${ARTICLE_DATE}/election-cycle/${CYCLE_ANCHOR}/cycle-trajectory.md
  • Blocking gate: required by .github/prompts/05-analysis-gate.md § long-horizon checks
  • Content: ICD 203 BLUF + WEP per year + horizon bands T+1y / T+2y / T+5y, combining SCB national-accounts trajectory, IMF WEO multi-vintage projections, and Riksdag throughput metrics (vote counts, committee productivity, KU reprimands)
  • Cycle-rollover rewind: on registry flip, this file's content rewinds to a T+0 baseline (empty trajectory for the opening cycle); subsequent runs accrete evidence organically — see ext module §3.3

🎯 Purpose

Family D supplies issue-specific analytical lenses that sharpen every workflow across electoral cycles, voter segments, coalition arithmetic, historical echoes, the media environment, delivery questions, and forward watch-lists.

These products are core — every run produces all 7. The output set is stable across morning, evening, realtime, weekly, and monthly workflows. What adapts per run is item-level depth (tier L1 → L3) and the substance inside each file — not whether the file exists.

Core — every run produces all 7

Template Behaviour on a light-event day Behaviour on a P0-dense day
election-2026-analysis.md (alias: election-cycle-analysis.md) — Note: the alias is filename-only; the underlying template analysis/templates/election-2026-analysis.md remains 2026-scoped (pre-election window 2025-10 → 2026-09) until a cycle-parameterised template lands. Post-rollover, workflows write election-cycle-analysis.md but the content is generated from the same template with the cycle context injected at runtime via electionCycleAnchor. Seat-projection delta vs. last poll + which parties crossed the 4 % threshold; for the current cycle it tracks the campaign; for the next cycle it tracks post-election government-formation context Full seat projection + coalition viability + campaign-phase alignment of every P0 to the active cycle; electionCycleAnchor (article-type registry) determines which cycle lens is applied
voter-segmentation.md Baseline segment positions (5 axes: age, geography, education, income, incumbency) Per-document segment impact table with ≥5 cohorts and quantified swing estimates
coalition-mathematics.md Current seat map + pivotal-vote reference + confidence-vote arithmetic Scenario branching: each contested vote run through Sainte-Laguë, pivotal-actor detection, SD-Tidöbloc-opposition matrix
historical-parallels.md (variant: historical-baseline.md) Closest baseline precedent ≤ 40 years with similarity score, or explicit "no-precedent" finding Full parallel with outcome, stakeholder behaviour, and Bayesian base-rate update
media-framing-analysis.md Per-party + per-press-quadrant framing of the day's lead story, plus longitudinal-frame delta Per-document frame audit with quoted examples and platform-by-platform amplification scores
implementation-feasibility.md Audit of in-flight delivery backlog (IT, budget, regulatory, workforce) when no new bill lands Full RACI + milestone + risk-register for each new delivery obligation
forward-indicators.md ≥10 indicators across 4 horizons (72 h / week / month / election) refreshed every run Indicators + thresholds + trigger-to-hypothesis mapping for every P0/P1 
flowchart LR
    classDef core fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef electoral fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1565C0,color:#0D47A1
    classDef historical fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#FFC107,color:#3E2723
    classDef media fill:#F3E5F5,stroke:#7B1FA2,color:#311B92
    classDef impl fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#4CAF50,color:#1B5E20
    classDef fwd fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#FF9800,color:#BF360C

    T[Family A/B complete<br/>→ Family D core run]:::core

    D1[election-2026-analysis.md<br/>alias: election-cycle-analysis.md]:::electoral
    D2[voter-segmentation.md]:::electoral
    D3[coalition-mathematics.md]:::electoral
    D4[historical-parallels.md]:::historical
    D5[media-framing-analysis.md]:::media
    D6[implementation-feasibility.md]:::impl
    D7[forward-indicators.md]:::fwd

    T --> D1
    T --> D2
    T --> D3
    T --> D4
    T --> D5
    T --> D6
    T --> D7
Loading

🗳️ Part 1 — Current-cycle Election Analysis (election-2026-analysis.md)

Filename variants: election-2026-implications.md — identical structure. The cycle-agnostic alias election-cycle-analysis.md maps to the same canonical artifact via FILENAME_ALIASES in scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts; when both filenames exist in a folder the aggregator de-duplicates and emits only the first-encountered name. Post-2026-rollover, workflows may write election-cycle-analysis.md as the generalized name; election-2026-analysis.md remains a permanently valid alias.

Purpose

Translate today's policy activity into electoral consequences for the active-cycle Riksdag election: seat trajectories, bloc viability, mandate strength, and pre-election narrative positioning. The active cycle is determined by cycleAnchor from scripts/horizon-context.ts → horizonContext(). During the ±30-day rollover window, both current-cycle and next-cycle sections are produced (see §Cycle-rollover playbook).

Input

  • synthesis-summary.md (current events)
  • Opinion polling (SIFO, Novus, Demoskop, Sentio) — use only published, dated figures
  • 2018 + 2022 election results (for baseline trajectory); 2026 results once available for next-cycle analysis
  • Seat-allocation rules (Sainte-Laguë modified + 4 % threshold + 12 % regional)

Output — required structure

  1. Bloc standing table — for Tidöavtalet (M, KD, L, SD) vs Opposition (S, V, MP, C) vs cross-bloc:
    • Current poll average · 30-day change · 90-day change · Last election
  2. Seat-projection table — per party, showing polling-average seat translation with 4 % threshold risk flag
  3. Threshold-risk watch — any party within ±1.0 pp of 4 %
  4. Narrative positioning — how today's event helps / hurts each party's election narrative
  5. Mobilisation implications — turnout implications (young-voter, first-time, non-voter)
  6. Seat-projection Mermaid — color-coded bar by party
  7. Bloc-standing Mermaid — color-coded stacked bar

Required Mermaid — bloc standing

graph LR
    classDef tido fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef opp fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef cross fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723

    M[M<br/>19.1 %<br/>🟦 Tidö]:::tido
    SD[SD<br/>18.4 %<br/>🟦 Tidö]:::tido
    KD[KD<br/>4.8 %<br/>🟦 Tidö]:::tido
    L[L<br/>3.9 %<br/>⚠️ threshold]:::tido
    S[S<br/>31.2 %<br/>🟥 opposition]:::opp
    V[V<br/>7.1 %<br/>🟥 opposition]:::opp
    MP[MP<br/>4.6 %<br/>🟥 opposition]:::opp
    C[C<br/>7.3 %<br/>🟧 cross-bloc]:::cross
Loading

Quality gate

  • All 8 parties covered
  • Threshold risk explicit for any party <5 %
  • Polling averages cite ≥2 pollsters with dates
  • Seat math uses Sainte-Laguë modified
  • Narrative-positioning section neutral (equal depth across parties)

👥 Part 2 — Voter Segmentation (voter-segmentation.md)

Purpose

Identify which voter segments are materially affected by today's events and how each segment's pre-existing political alignment interacts with the new signal.

Input

  • SCB demographic microdata (age × region × income × education × sector)
  • Polling cross-tabs (published segment-level data only)
  • Prior election turnout + vote-by-segment data (SCB Statistiska Meddelanden)

Output — required structure

  1. Segment panel — for each of: Young-urban (18–34, storstad), Mid-career family (35–54), Retired (65+), Rural / glesbygd, High-income (top quintile), Low-income (bottom quintile), Secondary-sector workers, Public-sector workers:
    • Current political alignment · Policy exposure to today's events · Likely response
  2. Segment-issue Mermaid — color-coded quadrant (alignment × exposure)
  3. Mobilisation index — which segments are most "move-able" given the current evidence
  4. Disaggregation notes — where SCB data permits further cuts (e.g. foreign-born, women 35–44, etc.)

Required Mermaid — segment quadrant

quadrantChart
    title Segment alignment vs policy exposure
    x-axis "Low policy exposure" --> "High policy exposure"
    y-axis "Left-bloc leaning" --> "Right-bloc leaning"
    quadrant-1 "High-exposure right"
    quadrant-2 "High-exposure left"
    quadrant-3 "Low-exposure left"
    quadrant-4 "Low-exposure right"
    "Young-urban 18-34": [0.72, 0.28]
    "Retired 65+": [0.65, 0.71]
    "Rural / glesbygd": [0.41, 0.68]
    "Public-sector": [0.78, 0.35]
Loading

Quality gate

  • ≥8 segments covered
  • Every segment has SCB-cited demographic magnitude
  • Segment-issue quadrant includes all covered segments
  • Mobilisation index explains movability with evidence
  • Privacy rule: no segment drawn to <1000 persons to avoid re-identification

Segment privacy threshold — rationale (binding)

The <1000 persons threshold is not a stylistic preference; it is a derived control rooted in three converging concerns:

  1. GDPR Article 4(1) re-identification risk. SCB-published microdata is anonymised at the aggregate level. A segment drawn to fewer than ~1000 persons in a country of 10.5M can become indirectly re-identifying when crossed with a second variable (e.g., "rural drivers in Norrbotten under 35 with K-bil sport") — the cross-tabulation can collapse to a handful of households. The Article 29 Working Party Opinion 05/2014 on Anonymisation Techniques names singling-out, linkability, and inference as the three risks; sub-1000 micro-cells defeat all three. SCB's own micro-data publication policy follows a related minimum-cell-size principle.
  2. Statistical confidence. For a binary outcome (e.g., "voted SD") the 95 % CI half-width at p = 0.5, n = 1000 is ±3.1 pp; at n = 500 it widens to ±4.4 pp; at n = 100 to ±9.8 pp. Below n = 1000 the segment delta is generally smaller than the confidence interval, meaning the analysis cannot distinguish signal from sampling noise. Reporting such a segment as a quantitative finding is innumerate.
  3. Editorial avoidance of small-group stigmatisation. Segments drawn small enough to be re-identifiable are also drawn small enough to invite the editorial sin of using a single named individual as a stand-in for the whole group. The 1000-person floor enforces narrative restraint — talk about "rural Norrbotten residents under 35" not "Karin from Boden, 28."

Implementation rule: when SCB cross-tabs collapse below 1000, collapse one axis (e.g., merge two adjacent age bands or two neighbouring counties) until the cell count clears 1000. Document the collapse in the segment definition; never report the sub-1000 cell. If the collapsed segment is still analytically interesting at n ≥ 1000, use it; if not, drop it from the analysis.

🧮 Part 3 — Coalition Mathematics (coalition-mathematics.md)

Purpose

Compute the arithmetic of government formation, confidence, and policy coalition — which combinations clear 175 seats, which survive a misstatement of confidence, and which emerge as issue-specific coalitions for today's vote.

Input

  • Latest Riksdag seat distribution (349 seats)
  • Current government composition
  • Party-platform compatibility matrix (based on voting history from search_voteringar)
  • Today's vote results when applicable

Output — required structure

  1. Seat-count table — per party, current seats
  2. Majority viability matrix — all plausible 3–5 party coalitions with seat totals, tolerance to loss of 1 party, ideological coherence score
  3. Confidence arithmetic — who can block a confidence vote, who can trigger it
  4. Issue-specific coalitions — for today's top 3 items, which coalition actually materialised (from voting data)
  5. Cohesion indicators — party vote-split percentages on today's items
  6. Coalition-viability Mermaid — color-coded by viability status

Required Mermaid — coalition viability

graph TB
    classDef maj fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef min fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723
    classDef blocked fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef hypo fill:#9E9E9E,stroke:#424242,color:#FFFFFF

    C1[M+SD+KD+L<br/>175 seats · current]:::maj
    C2[S+V+MP+C<br/>158 seats]:::min
    C3[S+C+MP<br/>132 seats]:::min
    C4[M+S grand coalition<br/>186 seats · hypothetical]:::hypo
    C5[M+SD only<br/>140 seats · blocked by L/KD exit]:::blocked
Loading

Quality gate

  • All coalitions summed to exact seat counts
  • Tolerance-to-defection column filled per coalition
  • Issue-specific coalitions cite dok_id and vote counts from search_voteringar

Worked example — Sainte-Laguë modified seat allocation

Sweden uses the modified Sainte-Laguë method with a 4 % national threshold and a 12 % regional threshold (a party scoring under 4 % nationally still gets seats from a constituency where it exceeds 12 %). The first divisor for any party is 1.4 (the modification), then 3, 5, 7, 9, … The seat goes to the party with the highest quotient at each round.

Worked example using a hypothetical 11-seat constituency (Stockholm county, simplified to illustrate the algorithm):

Party Votes ÷1.4 (seat 1) ÷3 (after 1) ÷5 (after 2) ÷7 ÷9 ÷11 Final seats
S 90 000 64 286 30 000 18 000 12 857 10 000 8 182 4
M 75 000 53 571 25 000 15 000 10 714 — — 3
SD 55 000 39 286 18 333 11 000 — — — 2
V 30 000 21 429 10 000 — — — — 1
MP 12 000 8 571 — — — — — 1
L 9 000 6 429 — — — — — 0 — under 4 %, no regional override

Algorithm walk-through: Round 1: highest quotient (S ÷ 1.4 = 64 286) → S gets seat 1. Round 2: re-divide S by 3 (= 30 000); highest of all current quotients is M ÷ 1.4 = 53 571 → M gets seat 2. Round 3: re-divide M by 3; SD ÷ 1.4 = 39 286 wins → SD gets seat 3. Continue until all 11 seats are awarded.

Key gotchas the AI must respect:

  1. The 1.4 modifier replaces the first division for every party — not 1.0, not 0.7. Using straight Sainte-Laguë (3-5-7-…) inflates small-party seat counts and is wrong.
  2. Threshold check happens before allocation: parties under 4 % nationally are excluded from the divisor table unless they cleared 12 % in this specific constituency.
  3. Tied quotients are broken by total vote count (higher wins); document the tie-break rule used in the analysis.
  4. Constituency seats vs. levelling seats (utjämningsmandat) are separate phases. Sweden has 310 fixed constituency seats + 39 levelling seats. The first phase distributes 310 by constituency-level Sainte-Laguë; the second phase reassigns 39 to make the national distribution proportional. Always state which phase is being modelled.
  5. Sources: seat counts from search_voteringar and Valmyndigheten election archives; vote totals from SCB / Valmyndigheten primary CSVs (never approximated).

A coalition-mathematics file that asserts a seat outcome without showing the Sainte-Laguë computation fails the gate; copy this table form (or link to a calculator script's output) and adapt the numbers.

Quality gate (continued)

  • Cohesion indicators include numeric vote-split percentages
  • Hypothetical coalitions clearly labelled

📜 Part 4 — Historical Parallels (historical-parallels.md)

Filename variant: historical-baseline.md — identical structure.

Purpose

Locate today's event within a named prior episode (≤40 years back) and learn from what happened next last time.

Input

  • Riksdag archive (search_dokument with historical rm parameters)
  • SOU (Statens offentliga utredningar) archive
  • Statskontoret reports when historical implementation, public-management or agency-capacity lessons are relevant
  • Academic political-history references where applicable

Output — required structure

  1. Prior-episode cards — ≥3 named parallels; per card:
    • Name + date · Actors · Policy domain · Outcome · Duration · Source
    • Similarity score (1–10) with justification
    • Difference callouts — what is not analogous
  2. Timeline Mermaid — color-coded timeline of prior episodes
  3. Lesson-extraction table — which lessons transfer, which do not
  4. Base-rate note — based on prior parallels, prior probability of each scenario outcome

Required Mermaid — timeline

timeline
    title Historical parallels for today's event
    section 1990s
        1994 : Maastricht pre-accession debate
        1999 : EMU referendum prep
    section 2000s
        2003 : Euro referendum
        2008 : Financial-crisis emergency budget
    section 2010s
        2013 : RUT-expansion opposition coordination
        2018 : Post-election 134-day formation crisis
    section 2020s
        2022 : Tidöavtalet ratification
        2024 : NATO ratification package
Loading

Quality gate

  • ≥3 named parallels with dates and sources
  • Similarity score present with justification
  • Difference callouts explicit (not every lesson transfers)
  • Base-rate note quantifies prior-probability observation
  • Timeline Mermaid covers full spread

📢 Part 5 — Media Framing & Influence-Operations Analysis (media-framing-analysis.md)

Purpose

Document the frames being used by each actor and major media outlet, and the manipulation / influence-operations layer riding on top of them, so readers can separate substantive content from strategic communication and from coordinated inauthentic behaviour. v2.1 (2026-05-01) extends v2.0 with a founding "no-neutral-media" doctrine: every cited outlet must appear in an Outlet Bias Audit (ownership · funding mix · board-appointment authority · documented editorial lean · Reuters Institute Trust score · PO/PON complaints · foreign-actor link), every algorithmic claim must name the platform's optimisation target, and Frame C / D are labelled establishment / centrist-consensus and public-broadcaster proceduralist respectively — never "neutral / impartial / balanced". Procedural neutrality (equal analytical depth across all 8 Riksdag parties; equal evidentiary discipline) is the only neutrality the platform claims.

Input

  • Riksdag MCP: search_anforanden, search_dokument, get_dokument (named-MP frame language; longitudinal frame record).
  • Swedish public press: DN, SvD, Aftonbladet, Expressen, SVT, SR, TV4, Dagens ETC, Kvartal, Nyheter Idag, Samhällsnytt, Riks, regional press sample.
  • International quality press for frame lineage: Reuters / AP / DPA / AFP / Politico EU / FT / NYT / Le Monde / Der Spiegel / Helsingin Sanomat / Aftenposten / Berlingske.
  • State-affiliated outlets — RT/Sputnik/RIA/TASS/CGTN/PressTV — used only as amplification fingerprint, never as factual source.
  • Public CIB / disinformation dossiers: EUvsDisinfo, EU DisinfoLab, Meta CIB removal reports, NATO StratCom COE, GLOBSEC Vulnerability Index, Reuters Institute Digital News Report, Freedom House Nations in Transit, SÄPO/MUST/FRA/EU-EEAS public statements.
  • Ownership / funding data: Nordicom Media Ownership Database (gu.se), Allmänhetens Pressombudsman public registry.

Output — required structure (v2.1)

  1. Frame package inventory — ≥ 3 frames (A government / B opposition / C establishment / centrist-consensus / D public-broadcaster proceduralist; Frame E foreign-overlay ONLY when a state-affiliated or coordinated foreign-amplification signal is observed in window). Per frame: name · carrier (actor / outlet) · keyword markers · first-use date · approximate share of coverage.
  2. Entman functions per frame — problem definition · causal attribution · moral evaluation · treatment recommendation; every cell traces to a dated quote / dok_id / anförande.
  3. Cognitive vulnerability map — bias exploited (Cialdini / Kahneman / Roozenbeek-van der Linden) · mechanism · inoculation lever; primary-literature citation per row.
  4. Manipulation indicators (DISARM) — verbatim T#### codes (Flooding T0049, Astroturfing T0086, Distort facts T0023, Amplify existing narrative T0118, Prepare assets impersonating legitimate entities T0099, Develop AI-generated text T0085, Develop AI-generated images / deepfakes T0088, etc.); [unconfirmed] flag for any indicator without ≥ 2 corroborations; explicit no-signal finding when nothing observed.
  5. Narrative-laundering chain — fringe → alt-media → politician amplification → mainstream → international, with first-observed UTC timestamps and reach estimates from public metrics; missing nodes labelled, never invented.
  6. Source ecology / Outlet Bias Audit table — every cited outlet listed with ownership group · funding mix percentages · board-appointment authority · documented editorial lean · Reuters Institute Trust score · PO/PON complaint history · foreign-actor link. No bias audit row = no citation. "Neutral / impartial / balanced / objective" labels rejected. Public-service broadcasters (SVT/SR/UR) carry a licence-fee + politically-appointed-board + institutional-editorial-culture caveat; commercial quality press (DN/Bonnier, SvD/Schibsted) carry an owner-ideology + audience-demographic caveat. Source: Nordicom, Reuters Institute, PO/PON, Förvaltningsstiftelsen, EUvsDisinfo, EU-EEAS / SÄPO.
  7. CIB ABCDE block — Actor · Behaviour · Content · Degree · Effect (Camille François 2020) populated for any state-attribution claim. Observation ≠ attribution; state-attribution requires ≥ 3 ABCDE indicators + published SÄPO/MUST/FRA/EU-EEAS/EUvsDisinfo reference.
  8. Algorithmic-amplification asymmetry — per-platform reach asymmetry; every row must declare the platform's optimisation target (engagement / watch-time / retention / ad-yield) and cite a documented partisan/emotional asymmetry (Huszár et al. 2022 PNAS for X; Rathje, Van Bavel & van der Linden 2021 for Facebook outrage-amplification; TikTok DSA transparency report; Ribeiro et al. 2020 / Hosseinmardi et al. 2024 for YouTube; NATO StratCom COE 2023 for Telegram). There is no neutral algorithm — uncited "the algorithm shows X" rejected at Pass 2.
  9. Comparative-international frame lineage — ≥ 2 cognates traced to prior jurisdictions (FR 2011 Camus replacement frame, HU 2010 Fidesz elite-vs-people, RU 2014 firehose, PL 2015 PiS courts-vs-democracy, IT 2018 Lega/M5S, US 2017 alt-right, IL 2023 judicial reform, MAGA 2016/2020/2024). "No international cognate" for a major story is suspicious and triggers re-do.
  10. Strategic-doctrine detection — match to public-doctrine catalogue (firehose-of-falsehood RAND PE-198 · doppelganger EU DisinfoLab 2022 · gish gallop · reflexive control · active-measures spillover NATO StratCom · interest-group capture · MAGA cognate populism). Detection ≠ attribution; ≥ MODERATE confidence floor for any 🟧/🟥 verdict.
  11. Frame lifecycle / longevity — phase (rising / peak / decay / sleeper / zombie) · half-life days · zombie probability · reactivation trigger; xychart-beta horizon block over 8+ points (T-7d / T-3d / Today / T+3d / T+7d / T+14d / T+30d / T+90d).
  12. RRPA impact conversion — Reach × Resonance × Persistence × Action with ≥ 1 dated action indicator per frame (poll move, petition signatures, donation flows, demonstration permit) or [no action signal yet].
  13. Counter-resilience plan (L1–L5) — prebunking · just-in-time inoculation · lateral-reading prompt · debunking truth-sandwich · algorithmic-friction / DSA Art. 40 escalation; per-frame layer assignment with rationale. Platform reports the ladder, never executes counter-framing.
  14. Forward watchlist — ≥ 5 dated triggers with WEP band + Admiralty grade.
  15. Longitudinal frame record — append today's snapshot so future runs can detect zombie reactivations.

Required Mermaid — frame competition (with foreign-overlay tier when applicable)

graph LR
    classDef gov fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef opp fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef establishment fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723
    classDef proceduralist fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef foreign fill:#212121,stroke:#000000,color:#FFFFFF

    F1[Government frame<br/>'fiscal responsibility'<br/>dominant]:::gov
    F2[Opposition frame<br/>'welfare erosion']:::opp
    F3[Establishment / centrist-consensus frame<br/>'expert-led fiscal'<br/>moderate<br/>NOT 'neutral' — Bonnier/Schibsted owner ideology +<br/>centrist-urban audience documented]:::establishment
    F4[Public-broadcaster proceduralist frame<br/>'institutional remit framing'<br/>NOT 'impartial' — politically-appointed board +<br/>documented editorial culture]:::proceduralist
    F5[Foreign-overlay frame<br/>'NATO trap'<br/>state-affiliated amplification<br/>⚠️ only if observed]:::foreign

    F1 -.contests.- F2
    F3 -.synthesises.- F1
    F3 -.synthesises.- F2
    F4 -.emergent.- F1
    F5 -.amplifies.- F2
Loading

Quality gate (v2.1)

  • Founding "no-neutral-media" doctrine honoured — no outlet, algorithm, or broadcaster labelled "neutral / impartial / unbiased / balanced / objective" in the body without ≥ 1 documented-bias citation in the same paragraph.
  • Outlet Bias Audit populated for every cited outlet — ownership group · funding mix · board-appointment authority · documented editorial lean · Reuters Institute Trust score · PO/PON complaint history · foreign-actor link. No bias audit row = no citation.
  • Public-service broadcaster caveat present — every reliance on SVT / SR / UR / BBC / ARD / NRK / DR / YLE carries the licence-fee + politically-appointed-board + institutional-editorial-culture caveat.
  • Algorithmic-asymmetry rows declare optimisation target — every platform row names the objective function and cites a documented partisan/emotional asymmetry.
  • Frame C / D label discipline — "establishment / centrist-consensus" and "public-broadcaster proceduralist" respectively, never "neutral / analytical / impartial".
  • ≥ 3 frames identified with keyword markers AND Entman 4-function decomposition.
  • Cognitive-vulnerability map cites primary literature per row.
  • DISARM TTP map populated with verbatim T#### codes OR explicit no-signal finding.
  • Narrative-laundering chain produced or absence justified by node-by-node inspection.
  • CIB ABCDE block produced for any state-attribution claim; observation ≠ attribution discipline applied.
  • Comparative-international frame lineage lists ≥ 2 cognates with year, jurisdiction, and source.
  • Strategic-doctrine detection table executed (Yes/No per row).
  • Frame Lifecycle / Longevity table + xychart-beta with ≥ 8 horizon points.
  • RRPA composite per frame with ≥ 1 dated action indicator or honest [no action signal yet].
  • Counter-resilience layer mapping (L1–L5) per frame with rationale; procedural neutrality preserved (equal analytical depth across all 8 Riksdag parties; equal evidentiary discipline; full ownership/funding/lean disclosure) — never claimed as "neutral truth" or "neutral source".
  • Forward watchlist ≥ 5 dated triggers with WEP and Admiralty grades.
  • Frame E discipline: included only with observed signal; otherwise marked absent explicitly.

🛠️ Part 6 — Implementation Feasibility (implementation-feasibility.md)

Purpose

Assess whether a proposed policy can actually be delivered given constitutional, legal, administrative, financial, and operational constraints.

Input

  • The target dok_id and its implementing-agency identification
  • Myndighet (government agency) capacity indicators — staffing, budget, prior delivery record
  • Riksrevisionen prior audits of the same agency / policy area
  • EU-law and ECHR compatibility constraints

Output — required structure

  1. Delivery-path table — which agency owns delivery, legal basis, budget source, first-effect date, steady-state date
  2. Feasibility scorecard — five dimensions × 0–10 score × evidence × confidence:
    • Legal feasibility · Administrative feasibility · Financial feasibility · Political feasibility · Operational feasibility
  3. Risk register — ≥5 delivery risks, each with likelihood × impact × mitigation
  4. Capacity gap analysis — staffing, IT, legal, training gaps identified
  5. Historical-delivery comparison — against a prior similar policy (e.g. RUT, ROT, A-kassa reform)
  6. Feasibility Mermaid — color-coded scorecard bar

Required Mermaid — feasibility scorecard

graph TB
    classDef high fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef med fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723
    classDef low fill:#FF9800,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef crit fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF

    Legal[Legal feasibility<br/>8/10<br/>🟩 HIGH]:::high
    Admin[Administrative feasibility<br/>5/10<br/>🟧 MEDIUM]:::med
    Fin[Financial feasibility<br/>7/10<br/>🟩 HIGH]:::high
    Pol[Political feasibility<br/>4/10<br/>🟥 LOW]:::low
    Ops[Operational feasibility<br/>3/10<br/>⬛ VERY LOW<br/>bottleneck]:::crit
Loading

Quality gate

  • Delivery-path table identifies a specific myndighet
  • Scorecard scores are evidenced, not asserted
  • Risk register ≥5 rows with mitigations
  • Capacity-gap analysis quantified (FTEs, SEK, or time)
  • Historical-delivery comparison present with sources

🔭 Part 7 — Forward Indicators (forward-indicators.md)

Purpose

Pre-register observable indicators whose materialisation (or non-materialisation) will confirm or refute the current intelligence picture. This file is the platform's honesty mechanism — tomorrow's reality checks today's analysis.

Input

  • synthesis-summary.md · scenario-analysis.md · intelligence-assessment.md
  • Committee calendars (motionstider, utskottsmöten) from Riksdag calendar
  • Known government decision points over next 7 / 30 / 90 / 180 days

Output — required structure

  1. Indicator table — ≥10 indicators; per row:
    • Indicator · Horizon (7d / 30d / 90d / 180d) · Observation method · Trigger threshold · Confirms/refutes hypothesis · Confidence in prediction
  2. Time-horizon Mermaid — Gantt / timeline of expected signal dates
  3. Hypothesis-mapping table — which indicator maps to which ACH hypothesis from devils-advocate.md
  4. Null-hypothesis indicators — ≥3 indicators whose non-appearance carries signal
  5. Reliability-of-prediction note — how well previous forward-indicators files have scored (scoring is automated across runs)

Required Mermaid — forward timeline

gantt
    dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
    title Forward indicators — next 180 days
    section 7-day
    Committee vote on prop 108 :crit, a1, 2026-04-22, 3d
    Opposition response filing  :a2, 2026-04-24, 4d
    section 30-day
    Myndighet report deadline   :b1, 2026-05-05, 7d
    Coalition meeting signal    :b2, 2026-05-10, 3d
    section 90-day
    Budget motion window open   :c1, 2026-06-15, 14d
    section 180-day
    Pre-election kickoff        :milestone, 2026-10-01, 1d
Loading

Quality gate

  • ≥10 indicators across all four horizons
  • Every indicator has an observation method (named source)
  • Observation thresholds are concrete (numeric or named event)
  • Null-hypothesis indicators present
  • Hypothesis mapping links back to devils-advocate.md

🛠️ Production Workflow — step-by-step

flowchart TD
    classDef core fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef step fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#4CAF50,color:#1B5E20
    classDef gate fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#FFC107,color:#3E2723
    classDef out fill:#F3E5F5,stroke:#7B1FA2,color:#311B92

    TC[Family A + B complete<br/>→ produce all 7 Family D files]:::core

    E1["election-2026-analysis<br/>(alias: election-cycle-analysis)"]:::step
    E2[voter-segmentation]:::step
    E3[coalition-mathematics]:::step
    H[historical-parallels]:::step
    MF[media-framing-analysis]:::step
    IF[implementation-feasibility]:::step
    FI[forward-indicators]:::step

    G{Quality-gate<br/>per-template}:::gate
    O[Family D complete]:::out

    TC --> E1
    TC --> E2
    TC --> E3
    TC --> H
    TC --> MF
    TC --> IF
    TC --> FI

    E1 --> G
    E2 --> G
    E3 --> G
    H --> G
    MF --> G
    IF --> G
    FI --> G
    G -->|pass| O
    G -->|fail| TC
Loading

✅ Family-D Completion Checklist

  • All 7 Family D templates produced this run
  • All 8 parties covered where applicable
  • Polling, seat-math, and coalition-math use verifiable primary data
  • Historical parallels have similarity scores and difference callouts (or an explicit "no-precedent" finding with reasoning)
  • Media frames covered with equal depth across government/opposition
  • Implementation feasibility names a delivery agency
  • Forward indicators include null-hypothesis observations and ≥10 total
  • All outputs use canonical color palette and 5-level confidence scale
  • GDPR data-minimisation observed in voter-segmentation (no sub-1000 cohorts)

🔗 Template bindings

Template Methodology section Cycle anchor
analysis/templates/election-2026-analysis.md — one template. Pre-rollover workflows write election-2026-analysis.md; post-rollover workflows write election-cycle-analysis.md. Both map to the same artifact via FILENAME_ALIASES in scripts/render-lib/aggregator/order.ts; when both exist the aggregator prefers election-2026-analysis.md (first in AGGREGATION_ORDER) — write only one name per run. Part 1 above electionCycleAnchor (article-type registry)
analysis/templates/voter-segmentation.md Part 2 above any
analysis/templates/coalition-mathematics.md Part 3 above any
analysis/templates/historical-parallels.md Part 4 above any
analysis/templates/media-framing-analysis.md Part 5 above any
analysis/templates/implementation-feasibility.md Part 6 above any
analysis/templates/forward-indicators.md Part 7 above any
analysis/templates/cycle-trajectory.md §Cycle-trajectory artefact above current or next

📐 Cross-references to other methodology layers

🔐 ISMS Alignment

Control How this methodology satisfies it
ISO 27001 A.5.23 + A.5.34 Voter-segmentation respects GDPR Art. 9 (political-opinion data) + re-identification threshold
ISO 27001 A.5.7 Forward-indicators constitutes structured threat-intelligence horizon
NIST CSF ID.RA-6 (Risk responses) Implementation-feasibility lists mitigations
NIST CSF DE.CM-8 Forward indicators = continuous monitoring definition
CIS 17.3 (Policy reviews) Historical-parallels maps prior policy cycles
GDPR Art. 9(2)(e)/(g) Political-opinion data processed on public-interest basis
NIS2 Art. 21 Implementation-feasibility considers resilience

📄 Document Control

Owner: CEO (Intelligence Program) · Reviewer: CISO + Chief Analyst · Review Cycle: Quarterly Next Review: 2026-07-21 · Related: ai-driven-analysis-guide.md, strategic-extensions-methodology.md, synthesis-methodology.md

Generated following Riksdagsmonitor Electoral & Domain Methodology v1.4 — Family D Lens-Specific Layer.