---
## 🎯 Purpose
This directory contains a **structured catalog of analysis templates** that defines the exact output format for every political intelligence artifact produced by Riksdagsmonitor's AI agents. Templates ensure consistency, completeness, and quality across all analysis types — from per-file document intelligence to full synthesis summaries.
> **Critical Rule:** AI agents MUST follow these templates. Templates define structure and required sections — the AI fills them with genuine, evidence-based analysis. Templates must NEVER be copied verbatim with placeholder text.
Templates are **not** standalone outputs. They form a **composable intelligence pipeline** — individual templates feed into the daily synthesis, which aggregates into weekly and monthly intelligence reports. The per-file analysis template is the most frequently used: every downloaded Riksdag MCP data file receives a comprehensive analysis using this template.
**Critical mandates:**
- 🔍 AI agents must **READ actual Riksdag data** and produce original analysis — never scripted boilerplate
- 📎 Every claim requires an **evidence citation** (dok_id, vote record, or MCP data file path)
- 📊 All outputs require **structured tables + colour-coded Mermaid diagrams** — plain prose alone is rejected
- 🎯 Every analysis must pass a **minimum 7.0/10 quality gate** before consumption by article generators
---
## 📐 Template Architecture
```mermaid
graph TB
subgraph "📥 Input Layer"
RAW["📄 Raw Parliamentary
Documents"]
META["📊 Document
Metadata"]
end
subgraph "🔬 Per-Document Analysis"
T1["🔍 Per-File Political
Intelligence Template"]
end
subgraph "🧪 Analytical Dimension Templates"
T2["🏷️ Political
Classification"]
T3["⚠️ Risk
Assessment"]
T4["💼 SWOT
Analysis"]
T5["🎭 Threat
Analysis"]
T6["📈 Significance
Scoring"]
T7["👥 Stakeholder
Impact"]
end
subgraph "📰 Synthesis Layer"
T8["🧩 Synthesis
Summary"]
end
RAW --> T1
META --> T1
T1 --> T2 & T3 & T4 & T5 & T6 & T7
T2 & T3 & T4 & T5 & T6 & T7 --> T8
style RAW fill:#9E9E9E,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#616161,stroke-width:2px
style META fill:#9E9E9E,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#616161,stroke-width:2px
style T1 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:3px
style T2 fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
style T3 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px
style T4 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px
style T5 fill:#C2185B,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#880E4F,stroke-width:2px
style T6 fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px
style T7 fill:#2196F3,color:#000000,stroke:#0097A7,stroke-width:2px
style T8 fill:#FFC107,color:#000000,stroke:#FFA000,stroke-width:3px
```
---
## 🗺️ Template Interconnection Map
All eight templates form an integrated intelligence network. The per-file analysis template consumes outputs from the six specialist templates, and the synthesis template aggregates all per-file analyses:
```mermaid
graph LR
subgraph "📋 Specialist Templates"
CLS["🏷️ Political
Classification"]
RSK["⚠️ Risk
Assessment"]
THR["🎭 Threat
Analysis"]
SWT["💼 SWOT
Analysis"]
STK["👥 Stakeholder
Impact"]
SIG["📈 Significance
Scoring"]
end
subgraph "📦 Integrating Templates"
PFI["🔍 Per-File
Intelligence"]
SYN["🧩 Daily
Synthesis"]
end
CLS -->|"sensitivity + domain"| PFI
RSK -->|"L×I scores"| PFI
THR -->|"6-dimension threats"| PFI
SWT -->|"quadrant findings"| PFI
STK -->|"impact assessments"| PFI
SIG -->|"composite score"| PFI
PFI -->|"per-document analysis"| SYN
SYN -->|"editorial direction"| ART["📰 Article
Generator"]
style CLS fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C
style RSK fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C
style THR fill:#424242,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#212121
style SWT fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style STK fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
style SIG fill:#FFC107,color:#000000,stroke:#FFA000
style PFI fill:#4CAF50,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
style SYN fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00
style ART fill:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
```
---
## 📑 Master Template Catalog — Family A–E
Templates are grouped by the **output family** defined in [`ai-driven-analysis-guide.md`](../methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md#-output-matrix--every-file-every-family). Each family corresponds to a distinct role in the 7-step analysis protocol. Every analysis workflow uses the same catalog.
### 📘 Family A — Core Synthesis (every run produces all 9)
> **Methodology:** [synthesis-methodology.md](../methodologies/synthesis-methodology.md) defines step-by-step production of A2, A3, A4, A9. Classification (A5) uses [political-classification-guide.md](../methodologies/political-classification-guide.md). SWOT (A6) uses [political-swot-framework.md](../methodologies/political-swot-framework.md). Risk (A7) uses [political-risk-methodology.md](../methodologies/political-risk-methodology.md). Threat (A8) uses [political-threat-framework.md](../methodologies/political-threat-framework.md).
| # | File | Template | Purpose |
|:-:|------|----------|---------|
| A1 | `README.md` (folder index) | [folder README](#folder-readme-template) | Index + links for each workflow folder |
| A2 | `executive-brief.md` | [executive-brief.md](executive-brief.md) | BLUF, 3 decisions, 60-second read, confidence-labeled |
| A3 | `synthesis-summary.md` | [synthesis-summary.md](synthesis-summary.md) | Integrated intelligence picture + article decision |
| A4 | `significance-scoring.md` | [significance-scoring.md](significance-scoring.md) | DIW-weighted ranking, 6 dimensions |
| A5 | `classification-results.md` | [political-classification.md](political-classification.md) | 7-dimension classification across documents |
| A6 | `swot-analysis.md` | [swot-analysis.md](swot-analysis.md) | Stakeholder SWOT + TOWS + cross-SWOT |
| A7 | `risk-assessment.md` | [risk-assessment.md](risk-assessment.md) | 5×5 L×I matrix + cascading chains |
| A8 | `threat-analysis.md` | [threat-analysis.md](threat-analysis.md) | Political threat taxonomy + attack tree |
| A9 | `stakeholder-perspectives.md` | [stakeholder-impact.md](stakeholder-impact.md) | 6-lens stakeholder impact matrix |
### 📗 Family B — Structural Metadata (every run produces all 2)
> **Methodology:** [structural-metadata-methodology.md](../methodologies/structural-metadata-methodology.md) — step-by-step production of the provenance ledger + relational graph, with SLA table and 7-edge relationship taxonomy.
| # | File | Template | Purpose |
|:-:|------|----------|---------|
| B1 | `data-download-manifest.md` | [data-download-manifest.md](data-download-manifest.md) | Transparent MCP-download inventory + data-depth ceilings |
| B2 | `cross-reference-map.md` | [cross-reference-map.md](cross-reference-map.md) | Policy clusters + legislative chains + coordinated-activity patterns |
### 📙 Family C — Strategic Extensions (core — every run produces all 5)
> **Methodology:** [strategic-extensions-methodology.md](../methodologies/strategic-extensions-methodology.md) — step-by-step production of all 5 always-produced depth products (ACH matrix, peer-country grid, Key Judgments, bias audit, run-audit gate).
| # | File | Template | Role on every run |
|:-:|------|----------|-------------------|
| C1 | `scenario-analysis.md` | [scenario-analysis.md](scenario-analysis.md) | 4 scenarios with probabilities summing to 100%; converges to narrow-band on light days |
| C2 | `comparative-international.md` | [comparative-international.md](comparative-international.md) | Peer-country comparison (≥5 peers); compares baseline when no reform active (variant filename: `international-comparative.md`) |
| C3 | `devils-advocate.md` | [devils-advocate.md](devils-advocate.md) | ACH red-team with ≥3 competing hypotheses; documents rejected hypotheses when evidence is strong |
| C4 | `intelligence-assessment.md` | [intelligence-assessment.md](intelligence-assessment.md) | 3–7 Key Judgments + PIRs for the next cycle |
| C5 | ⭐ `methodology-reflection.md` | [methodology-reflection.md](methodology-reflection.md) | **VITAL run-audit file** — evidence sufficiency + confidence distribution + party-neutrality + ≥3 concrete improvements |
### 📕 Family D — Electoral & Domain Lenses (core — every run produces all 7)
> **Methodology:** [electoral-domain-methodology.md](../methodologies/electoral-domain-methodology.md) — step-by-step production of all 7 always-produced domain lenses (Sainte-Laguë seat math, segment privacy threshold, 4-horizon forward indicators, longitudinal frame delta).
| # | File | Template | Role on every run |
|:-:|------|----------|-------------------|
| D1 | `election-2026-analysis.md` | [election-2026-analysis.md](election-2026-analysis.md) | Seat-projection delta + coalition viability; perpetual Swedish political-context file (variant filename: `election-2026-implications.md`) |
| D2 | `voter-segmentation.md` | [voter-segmentation.md](voter-segmentation.md) | 5-axis segment impact; documents baseline positions on procedural days |
| D3 | `coalition-mathematics.md` | [coalition-mathematics.md](coalition-mathematics.md) | Current seat map + pivotal votes + Sainte-Laguë scenarios |
| D4 | `historical-parallels.md` | [historical-parallels.md](historical-parallels.md) | Named precedent(s) ≤ 40 years with similarity score, or explicit "no-precedent" finding (variant filename: `historical-baseline.md`) |
| D5 | `media-framing-analysis.md` | [media-framing-analysis.md](media-framing-analysis.md) | Per-party + per-press-quadrant framing + longitudinal-frame delta |
| D6 | `implementation-feasibility.md` | [implementation-feasibility.md](implementation-feasibility.md) | Delivery-risk view; audits in-flight backlog when no new bill lands |
| D7 | `forward-indicators.md` | [forward-indicators.md](forward-indicators.md) | ≥10 indicators across 4 horizons (72 h / week / month / election) |
### 📒 Family E — Per-Document
> **Methodology:** [per-document-methodology.md](../methodologies/per-document-methodology.md) — step-by-step production of `{dok_id}-analysis.md` + cluster files, with doctype-specific Mermaid taxonomy and 4-condition clustering rule.
| # | File | Template | Purpose |
|:-:|------|----------|---------|
| E1 | `documents/${dok_id}-analysis.md` | [per-file-political-intelligence.md](per-file-political-intelligence.md) | Deep per-document analysis (tiers L1–L3) |
| E2 | `documents/${cluster}-cluster-analysis.md` | [per-file-political-intelligence.md § Cluster](per-file-political-intelligence.md) | Cluster-level synthesis for grouped documents |
### 🛰️ Operational Supplementary — Not Counted in the 23 (Added v2.4, 2026-04-23)
> **Purpose** — Enrichment artifacts that strengthen the AI-FIRST quality loop, cross-run memory, and MCP health auditability. **Recommended** for every `deep` run; **mandatory** for every `comprehensive` (Tier-C aggregation) run. For non-Tier-C runs these artifacts are generally non-blocking; **exception:** `cross-run-diff.md` (S5) is gate-required whenever `ANALYSIS_RUN_COUNT >= 2` (same article type), including `standard` and `deep` runs. Each artifact is consumed by [`.github/prompts/05-analysis-gate.md §Supplementary checks`](../../.github/prompts/05-analysis-gate.md#supplementary-checks) when present.
>
> **Methodology index** — [`per-artifact-methodologies.md`](../methodologies/per-artifact-methodologies.md) §§ analysis-index · reference-analysis-quality · mcp-reliability-audit · workflow-audit · cross-run-diff · cross-session-intelligence · session-baseline.
> **Catalog row** — [`artifact-catalog.md §Operational Supplementary`](../methodologies/artifact-catalog.md#-operational-supplementary-artifacts-7).
| # | File | Template | Purpose | Typical article types |
|:-:|------|----------|---------|----------------------|
| S1 | `analysis-index.md` | [analysis-index.md](analysis-index.md) | Read-me-first run navigator: artifact inventory, MCP summary, recommended reading order, gate outcome | All `deep` + `comprehensive` |
| S2 | `reference-analysis-quality.md` | [reference-analysis-quality.md](reference-analysis-quality.md) | Per-run self-score vs reference benchmark + Pass-2 action list — operationalises the AI-FIRST principle | All `comprehensive` |
| S3 | `mcp-reliability-audit.md` | [mcp-reliability-audit.md](mcp-reliability-audit.md) | Endpoint-by-endpoint health record for `riksdag-regering` / `scb` / `world-bank` / IMF with latency, freshness, failure incidents, cache usage | All `comprehensive`; any `deep` run with MCP degradation |
| S4 | `workflow-audit.md` | [workflow-audit.md](workflow-audit.md) | Prompt-module-by-module self-audit of the 7-module pipeline; 11-principle compliance table | All `comprehensive` |
| S5 | `cross-run-diff.md` | [cross-run-diff.md](cross-run-diff.md) | Bayesian delta vs prior run of the **same** article type — posterior WEP bands, scenario-probability shifts, risk-register deltas | Any article type with ≥ 2 runs |
| S6 | `cross-session-intelligence.md` | [cross-session-intelligence.md](cross-session-intelligence.md) | **Session-over-session** narrative (week / month / quarter aggregation) — momentum, crystallisation moments, vote-discipline time-series | `weekly-review`, `monthly-review`, `motions` (quarterly) |
| S7 | `session-baseline.md` | [session-baseline.md](session-baseline.md) | Calendar + adopted-texts + voterings roster for the period — data-dense reference every narrative artifact points back to | `weekly-review`, `monthly-review`, `propositions`, `motions` (aggregation) |
Line floors for S1–S7 are configured in [`reference-quality-thresholds.json`](../methodologies/reference-quality-thresholds.json) and apply to `comprehensive` runs.
### 🔭 Analytical Supplementary — Optional Deep-Dive (Added v2.5, 2026-04-23)
> **Purpose** — Optional deep-dive analytical templates mapped to frameworks explicitly listed in the intelligence-operative agent's "Core Expertise" and "Analytical Frameworks" sections. **Never replace** a core artifact and **never blocking** in `05-analysis-gate.md`. Pair with and cite the canonical artifact they extend.
>
> **Methodology** — [`analytical-supplementary-methodology.md`](../methodologies/analytical-supplementary-methodology.md) (composition rules, evidence rules, per-template analytic moves).
> **Catalog row** — [`artifact-catalog.md §Analytical Supplementary`](../methodologies/artifact-catalog.md#-analytical-supplementary-artifacts-4).
| # | File | Template | Purpose | Trigger |
|:-:|------|----------|---------|---------|
| AS1 | `pestle-analysis.md` | [pestle-analysis.md](pestle-analysis.md) | Macro-environment scan (Political/Economic/Social/Technological/Legal/Environmental) with IMF-vintage economic rows, ≥ 3 cross-dimension interactions, key judgement per dimension | event crosses ≥ 2 PESTLE dimensions |
| AS2 | `political-stride-assessment.md` | [political-stride-assessment.md](political-stride-assessment.md) | STRIDE applied to political/electoral/institutional surfaces — 6 dimension tables, ≥ 2 Mermaid attack trees, MITRE-style TTP map, ISMS control map (ISO 27001 · NIST CSF 2.0 · CIS v8.1) | election-adjacent · integrity incident · disinfo spike · critical-infra vote |
| AS3 | `wildcards-blackswans.md` | [wildcards-blackswans.md](wildcards-blackswans.md) | Tail of `scenario-analysis.md` — wildcard register (≥ 8), black-swan candidates (≥ 3) with plausible causal chains, cascading consequence trees, resilience assessment | long-horizon forecasting (`monthly-review`, election-year aggregation) |
| AS4 | `quantitative-swot.md` | [quantitative-swot.md](quantitative-swot.md) | Numerical SWOT scoring using same DIW weight vector as `significance-scoring.md`; TOWS matrix with scored action rankings; sensitivity analysis | decision memo requiring scored ranking |
Line floors for AS1–AS4 live in `reference-quality-thresholds.json § thresholds.analyticalSupplementary`; apply **only when the template is produced**. Non-production is never a gate failure.
### Workflow → Family Map
| Workflow | Family A | Family B | Family C | Family D | Family E |
|----------|:--------:|:--------:|:--------:|:--------:|:--------:|
| Morning per-type (propositions, motions, betänkanden, interpellationer, frågor) | ✅ All 9 | ✅ Both | ✅ All 5 | ✅ All 7 | ✅ Every doc |
| Midday week/month-ahead | ✅ All 9 | ✅ Both | ✅ All 5 | ✅ All 7 | ✅ Every forecast item |
| Evening analysis | ✅ All 9 | ✅ Both | ✅ All 5 | ✅ All 7 | ✅ Every doc |
| Realtime monitor | ✅ All 9 | ✅ Both | ✅ All 5 | ✅ All 7 | ✅ Every doc |
| Weekly review | ✅ All 9 | ✅ Both | ✅ All 5 + reflection | ✅ All 7 | Top 20 |
| Monthly review | ✅ All 9 | ✅ Both | ✅ All 5 + reflection | ✅ All 7 | Top 50 |
---
## 📖 Template Catalog
### 🔍 Per-File Political Intelligence — `per-file-political-intelligence.md`
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Purpose** | Deep intelligence analysis of a single parliamentary document |
| **When Used** | Per-document analysis stage (one per `dok_id`) |
| **Output Location** | `analysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/{articleType}/documents/{dok_id}-analysis.md` |
| **Key Sections** | Executive Summary · Classification · SWOT · Threat Assessment · Risk Assessment · Stakeholder Impact · Significance Score |
```mermaid
flowchart LR
DOC["📄 Single
Document
(dok_id)"] --> EXEC["📋 Executive
Summary"]
DOC --> CLASS_S["🏷️ Classification"]
DOC --> SWOT_S["💼 SWOT"]
DOC --> THREAT_S["🎭 Threats"]
DOC --> RISK_S["⚠️ Risks"]
DOC --> STAKE_S["👥 Stakeholders"]
DOC --> SIG_S["📈 Significance"]
style DOC fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px
style EXEC fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
style CLASS_S fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00
style SWOT_S fill:#FFC107,color:#000000,stroke:#FFA000
style THREAT_S fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C
style RISK_S fill:#C2185B,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#880E4F
style STAKE_S fill:#2196F3,color:#000000,stroke:#0097A7
style SIG_S fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C
```
---
### 🏷️ Political Classification — `political-classification.md`
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Purpose** | Multi-dimensional classification of political events and documents |
| **Dimensions** | 7: Public Interest · Democratic Integrity · Policy Urgency · Economic · Governance · Political Capital · Legislative |
| **Severity Levels** | CRITICAL · HIGH · MEDIUM · LOW |
| **Output** | Classification results table with confidence labels |
| **New in v2.2** | **Confidence Decay Rule** — classifications older than 7 days should be reviewed; those 8+ days require re-evaluation |
---
### ⚠️ Risk Assessment — `risk-assessment.md`
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Purpose** | Systematic political risk identification, scoring, and mitigation analysis |
| **Scored Dimensions** | 5: Coalition · Policy · Budget · Electoral · External |
| **Scoring** | Five-dimension risk profile using 1–5 scores per dimension with an overall risk synthesis and color-coded prioritization |
| **Advanced** | Related sub-analyses: Cascading risk chains · Risk velocity · Political Temperature Index |
| **New in v2.2** | **Risk Trend column** (↑↓→) · **Previous Assessment Comparison** · **Risk Interconnection Mermaid diagram** |
```mermaid
graph LR
subgraph "🟢 Low Risk (1–4)"
L["Routine
Monitoring"]
end
subgraph "🟡 Medium Risk (5–9)"
M["Active
Tracking"]
end
subgraph "🟠 High Risk (10–14)"
H["Urgent
Analysis"]
end
subgraph "🔴 Critical Risk (15–25)"
C["Immediate
Escalation"]
end
L --> M --> H --> C
style L fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
style M fill:#FFC107,color:#000000,stroke:#FFA000,stroke-width:2px
style H fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px
style C fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px
```
---
### 💼 SWOT Analysis — `swot-analysis.md`
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Purpose** | Multi-stakeholder political SWOT with strategic option generation |
| **Stakeholder Lenses** | Government Coalition · Opposition · Citizens · Economic Actors · International |
| **Advanced Features** | TOWS Matrix · Cross-SWOT Interference · Temporal Dynamics · Scenario Generation |
| **Required Output** | Evidence table per quadrant + Mermaid visualization |
| **New in v2.2** | **SWOT Delta section** (New/Changed/Removed entries) · **Temporal window specification** |
> ⚠️ **Anti-Pattern Warning:** Generic bullet points like "Strong parliamentary majority" without dok_id evidence are REJECTED by the quality gate.
---
### 🎭 Threat Analysis — `threat-analysis.md`
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Purpose** | Multi-framework democratic process threat modeling |
| **Required Frameworks** | Attack Trees + at least ONE of: 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 |
| **New in v3.2** | **Threat Evolution Timeline** · **Cross-Methodology Linkage** (how threats feed into SWOT and Risk) |
> ⚠️ **Anti-Pattern Warning:** Using STRIDE alone is FORBIDDEN. Political threats require politically-native categories, not cybersecurity taxonomies.
```mermaid
graph TD
subgraph "🚫 WRONG Approach"
STRIDE["STRIDE Categories
(cybersecurity)"]
STRIDE_OUT["❌ Superficial
categorisation"]
STRIDE --> STRIDE_OUT
end
subgraph "✅ CORRECT Approach"
MULTI["4-Framework
Integration"]
AT["🌳 Attack Trees"]
KC["⚔️ Kill Chain"]
DM["💎 Diamond Model"]
AP["👤 Actor Profiling"]
MULTI --> AT & KC & DM & AP
AT & KC & DM & AP --> DEEP["✅ Actionable
intelligence"]
end
style STRIDE fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C
style STRIDE_OUT fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C
style MULTI fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
style AT fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style KC fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00
style DM fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C
style AP fill:#C2185B,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#880E4F
style DEEP fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
```
---
### 📈 Significance Scoring — `significance-scoring.md`
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Purpose** | Quantitative significance assessment for prioritisation and article selection |
| **Score Range** | 1–10 integer composite score |
| **Dimensions** | Political Weight · Public Impact · Legislative Consequence · Temporal Urgency · Cross-Reference Density |
| **Thresholds** | ≥8 Breaking News · 6–7 Major Analysis · 4–5 Standard Coverage · <4 Monitoring Only |
| **New in v2.2** | **Relative Scoring section** — compares document score to same-type average |
---
### 👥 Stakeholder Impact — `stakeholder-impact.md`
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Purpose** | Maps how political events affect key stakeholder groups |
| **Stakeholder Groups** | Government · Parliament · Opposition · Judiciary · Media · Citizens · International · Industry |
| **Assessment Axes** | Impact Magnitude · Impact Direction (positive/negative) · Timeframe · Certainty |
| **Output** | Stakeholder impact matrix with directional indicators |
| **New in v2.2** | **Position Change Tracking** (before/after this document) · **Power-Interest Grid** (Mermaid quadrant chart) |
---
### 🧩 Synthesis Summary — `synthesis-summary.md`
| Attribute | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| **Purpose** | Integrates all per-file analyses into a single coherent intelligence briefing |
| **Input** | All per-document analyses + classification + risk + SWOT + threat + significance + stakeholder |
| **Output Sections** | Executive Summary · Key Findings · Cross-Document Patterns · Risk Overview · Strategic Outlook |
| **Role** | Final deliverable that feeds directly into article generation |
| **New in v2.2** | **Mandatory Forward Indicators** (3+ required) · **Aggregate Risk Level with Trend** · **Quality Self-Check Protocol** |
```mermaid
flowchart TB
subgraph "📥 Individual Analyses"
A1["📄 Doc A
Analysis"]
A2["📄 Doc B
Analysis"]
A3["📄 Doc C
Analysis"]
AN["📄 Doc N
Analysis"]
end
subgraph "🧪 Cross-Document Analysis"
XREF["🔗 Cross-Reference
Mapping"]
PATTERN["📊 Pattern
Detection"]
CONFLICT["⚡ Contradiction
Analysis"]
end
subgraph "🧩 Synthesis Output"
EXEC_S["📋 Executive
Summary"]
FIND["🔍 Key
Findings"]
RISK_O["⚠️ Risk
Overview"]
OUTLOOK["🔮 Strategic
Outlook"]
end
A1 & A2 & A3 & AN --> XREF & PATTERN & CONFLICT
XREF & PATTERN & CONFLICT --> EXEC_S & FIND & RISK_O & OUTLOOK
style A1 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style A2 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style A3 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style AN fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style XREF fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px
style PATTERN fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px
style CONFLICT fill:#7B1FA2,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px
style EXEC_S fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
style FIND fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px
style RISK_O fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px
style OUTLOOK fill:#FFC107,color:#000000,stroke:#FFA000,stroke-width:2px
```
---
## 🔄 Template Usage Flow
```mermaid
sequenceDiagram
participant WF as 🔄 Workflow
participant PRE as 📥 Pre-Analysis Script
participant AI as 🤖 AI Agent
participant QG as ✅ Quality Gate
WF->>PRE: Trigger analysis
PRE->>PRE: Download data (scripts ONLY download)
PRE->>AI: Raw documents + stub files
Note over AI: AI reads methodology +
template + prompt
AI->>AI: Apply per-file-political-intelligence.md
AI->>AI: Apply political-classification.md
AI->>AI: Apply risk-assessment.md
AI->>AI: Apply swot-analysis.md
AI->>AI: Apply threat-analysis.md
AI->>AI: Apply significance-scoring.md
AI->>AI: Apply stakeholder-impact.md
AI->>AI: Apply synthesis-summary.md
AI->>QG: Completed analysis files
QG->>QG: Check 1: Evidence tables present?
QG->>QG: Check 2: Mermaid diagrams present?
QG->>QG: Check 3: Confidence labels present?
QG->>QG: Check 4: dok_id citations present?
QG->>QG: Check 5: Template structure compliant?
QG->>QG: Check 6: No stub content remaining?
alt All checks pass
QG->>WF: ✅ Analysis approved
else Any check fails
QG->>AI: ❌ Revision required
end
```
---
## 🆕 v4.5 Template Content Completion (2026-04-25)
Surfaces the Phase 3–4 template content additions. Every change here is binding contract for new artifact generation runs.
### ✅ Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklist — universal (33 templates)
Every production template (excludes only the templates index README and `methodology-reflection.md`, which IS the Pass-2 audit) now carries a **10-item Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklist** at its end. The checklist is binding: any unchecked ❌ at the end of Pass 2 forces a Pass-3 rewrite of the affected section. Items cover tradecraft anchors, source-diversity floor, evidence specificity, named-actor discipline, counter-narrative presence, Election 2026 lens, no illustrative content as fact, cross-reference resolution, Mermaid render check, and line-floor compliance against [`reference-quality-thresholds.json`](../methodologies/reference-quality-thresholds.json).
### 📖 Narrative subsection — Family A synthesis + L2+ per-file (3 templates)
- `executive-brief.md` v1.1 → v1.2 — added §"Narrative" with lede + body + counter-narrative slots.
- `synthesis-summary.md` v2.4 → v2.5 — added §"Narrative" with lead-story narrative (400–700 words) + optional secondary-thread narrative.
- `per-file-political-intelligence.md` v2.4 → v2.5 — added §"Narrative" required for ≥ L2-Strategic depth tier.
All three are graded against the **Pass-2 6-axis narrative rubric** (lede / scene / character / surprise / takeaway / counter-narrative) in [`political-style-guide.md` §"Narrative-Voice Standards"](../methodologies/political-style-guide.md#-narrative-voice-standards-v32--new) — hard floor 18 / 30 to publish; any single axis < 3 fails.
### 📋 Doctype-variant alignment
Family E template `per-file-political-intelligence.md` is now bound to the **5 extended doctype variants** introduced in `per-document-methodology.md` v1.3: `motion-package`, `fpm` (shadow budget — full delta-envelope analysis), `utskottsbetänkande-variants` (explicit reservation handling), `KU-anmälan` (constitutional scrutiny), `EU-nämnd` (EU consultation). Each variant has a specialised Mermaid shape; the binding doctype-detection algorithm runs before any per-file analysis is written.
### 🔢 Version bumps (33 templates)
All 33 production templates were version-bumped (handles both `**📄 Version:**` major-format and `**Template version:**` footer-format). Library-wide: 277 cross-document `.md` links resolve, 0 broken; 33/33 templates carry Pass-2 Self-Audit Checklists; 35/35 templates carry Tradecraft Context blocks; 3/3 synthesis templates carry Narrative subsections; date-stamps unified at 2026-04-25.
### 🧪 Threshold JSON alignment (`reference-quality-thresholds.json` v1.2 → v1.3)
Legacy template aliases renamed throughout JSON: `classification-results.md` → `political-classification.md`; `stakeholder-perspectives.md` → `stakeholder-impact.md`. `executive-brief.md` line floors added to all 11 article-types. 0 ghost references remaining.
---
## 🆕 v4.4 Library Reconciliation (2026-04-25)
Phase 1 consistency & contract reconciliation pass — paired with [`../methodologies/README.md` §v4.4](../methodologies/README.md#-v44-library-reconciliation-2026-04-25). Highlights for the templates layer:
- **Tradecraft Context block added** to the 7 Family A + E core templates that lacked one (`synthesis-summary.md`, `swot-analysis.md`, `risk-assessment.md`, `threat-analysis.md`, `stakeholder-impact.md`, `significance-scoring.md`, `per-file-political-intelligence.md`) — these now carry F3EAD stage · PIRs served · Admiralty floor · WEP+ODNI · Source Diversity floor · SATs applied · ICD 203 standards on parity with the v1.x Family C/D templates.
- **Per-family inventory tables** added to the §"Artifact → workflow → gate check mapping" section so readers can see the complete 34-template inventory at a glance (was: tables only enumerated the 23 mandatory core).
- **Operational supplementary templates** (`analysis-index.md`, `cross-run-diff.md`, `cross-session-intelligence.md`, `mcp-reliability-audit.md`, `reference-analysis-quality.md`, `session-baseline.md`, `workflow-audit.md`) now carry an explicit `Template version: v1.1 · Last updated: 2026-04-25` footer (previously version-less).
- **Footer-stamp v1.0 templates** (`pestle-analysis.md`, `political-stride-assessment.md`, `quantitative-swot.md`, `wildcards-blackswans.md`) bumped to v1.1 / 2026-04-25.
- **Family A + E v2.3 templates** bumped to v2.4 (threat-analysis to v3.4) with `Last Updated: 2026-04-25`.
- **15 v1.0 templates** dated 2026-04-21 bumped to v1.1 / 2026-04-25.
- **IMF-first language sweep** — `voter-segmentation.md` socio-economic controls name IMF WEO for macro context and WB social/governance for participation and rule-of-law context.
---
## 🆕 v2.3 Common Improvements (All Templates)
> **Scope note:** "All 8 templates" below refers to the original Family A core templates (A2–A9). Families B–E templates (added in v3.0+) inherit these improvements where applicable. See [Master Template Catalog](#-master-template-catalog--family-ae) for the complete 34-template inventory (23 mandatory core: Family A 9 + B 2 + C 5 + D 7 — including the Family A folder README scaffolded from `analysis-index.md`; plus the Family E reusable template; plus 4 analytical supplementary; plus 7 operational supplementary).
All 8 templates were updated in v2.3 (2026-06-01) with the following cross-cutting improvements:
### 🗳️ Election 2026 Implications Section
Every template now includes an **Election 2026** section that assesses electoral impact, coalition scenarios, voter salience, campaign vulnerability, and policy legacy relative to the September 2026 Swedish general election. This section is **MANDATORY** in all analysis output.
### 🎯 5-Level Confidence Scale
The binary HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW confidence scale has been replaced with a **5-level confidence scale**:
- ⬛ **VERY LOW** — Speculation only, single unverified source
- 🟥 **LOW** — Circumstantial evidence, indirect indicators
- 🟧 **MEDIUM** — Multiple independent sources, moderate corroboration
- 🟩 **HIGH** — Official records, documented data, direct evidence
- 🟦 **VERY HIGH** — Verified data + independent corroboration + expert consensus
### 📊 Historical Comparison Tables
`synthesis-summary.md` now includes a **Historical Comparison** section with tables comparing current period metrics to prior periods and year-ago data, plus a precedents table from prior riksmöten.
### 📈 Election 2026 Relevance Score
`significance-scoring.md` now includes an **Election 2026 Relevance Score** with proximity bonus, coalition stability multiplier, and voter salience factor to produce election-adjusted significance scores.
---
## 🆕 v2.2 Common Improvements (All Templates)
All 8 templates were updated in v2.2 (2026-04-06) with the following cross-cutting improvements:
### ✅ Quality Self-Check Checklist
Every template now includes a **mandatory quality self-check checklist** at the bottom (before Document Control). AI agents must verify each item before finalising analysis output. Checklists enforce:
- Metadata completeness
- Evidence density requirements
- Mermaid diagram rendering verification
- Named actor citation requirements
- No remaining placeholder text (`[REQUIRED` search test)
- Cross-reference linkage
### 🔗 Cross-Reference Section
Every template now includes a **cross-reference section** linking to sibling analysis files (e.g., risk-assessment.md ↔ swot-analysis.md ↔ threat-analysis.md) and same-day analysis from other article types. This enables contextual completeness and cross-document pattern detection.
### 📋 Enhanced Document Control Footer
All templates now include **ISMS alignment references** (ISO 27001:2022, NIST CSF 2.0) in the Document Control footer, plus explicit `Owner` and `Effective Date` fields matching Hack23 ISMS documentation standards.
### 📊 Cross-Temporal Comparison
Templates that support temporal analysis now include explicit **previous assessment comparison** sections with trend indicators (↑ Increasing / → Stable / ↓ Decreasing) and evidence requirements for each trend direction.
---
## 🎯 Article-Type-Specific Template Customisation
While all 8 templates apply to every document, certain templates produce **richer, more unique output** depending on the document type. The AI agent should allocate proportionally more depth to the highlighted templates:
```mermaid
graph TB
subgraph "📋 Committee Reports"
CR_T1["🔍 Per-File Intel
Focus: voting splits"]
CR_T2["💼 SWOT
Focus: coalition dynamics"]
CR_T3["🎭 Threat
Focus: democratic process"]
end
subgraph "📜 Propositions"
PR_T1["🔍 Per-File Intel
Focus: legislative pipeline"]
PR_T2["⚠️ Risk
Focus: policy implementation"]
PR_T3["👥 Stakeholder
Focus: affected populations"]
end
subgraph "✊ Motions"
MO_T1["🔍 Per-File Intel
Focus: opposition strategy"]
MO_T2["💼 SWOT
Focus: issue framing"]
MO_T3["📈 Significance
Focus: signalverdi"]
end
subgraph "❓ Interpellations"
IP_T1["🔍 Per-File Intel
Focus: accountability"]
IP_T2["🎭 Threat
Focus: government scrutiny"]
IP_T3["👥 Stakeholder
Focus: minister responses"]
end
style CR_T1 fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
style CR_T2 fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
style CR_T3 fill:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#2E7D32
style PR_T1 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style PR_T2 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style PR_T3 fill:#1565C0,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#0D47A1
style MO_T1 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00
style MO_T2 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00
style MO_T3 fill:#FF9800,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#F57C00
style IP_T1 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C
style IP_T2 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C
style IP_T3 fill:#D32F2F,color:#FFFFFF,stroke:#B71C1C
```
### Unique Template Sections by Article Type
Each article type should produce unique analytical sections in its synthesis that **no other workflow can produce**:
| Article Type | Template | Unique Section Name | What Makes It Unique |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Committee Reports** | Synthesis | **Committee Vote Heatmap** | Party-by-party voting matrix with Ja/Nej/Avstår breakdown per beteckning |
| **Committee Reports** | SWOT | **Reservation Analysis** | Opposition reservations (dissenting opinions) text analysis — only committee reports have reservations |
| **Propositions** | Risk | **Legislative Pipeline Risk** | Where the bill sits in the process (remiss → utskott → plenum) and risk of delay/amendment |
| **Propositions** | Stakeholder | **Budget Impact Matrix** | Which population segments gain/lose from proposed budget changes |
| **Motions** | Significance | **Signalverdi Score** | Whether the motion is a genuine legislative bid or political positioning (only motions have this signal) |
| **Motions** | SWOT | **Cross-Party Alignment Map** | Which opposition parties co-sponsor or signal support — unique to motion dynamics |
| **Interpellations** | Per-File Intel | **Minister Response Scorecard** | Response timeliness (≤28 days statutory), evasion score, policy commitment extraction |
| **Interpellations** | Threat | **Accountability Gap Analysis** | Unanswered questions, overdue responses, pattern of ministerial avoidance by portfolio |
| **Evening Analysis** | Synthesis | **Daily Parliamentary Pulse** | Vote-weighted activity index combining all document types into a single daily metric |
| **Weekly Review** | SWOT | **Week-over-Week Trend Delta** | How did this week's political temperature differ from last week? Only weekly scope enables this |
| **Month Ahead** | Risk | **Strategic Calendar Risk Map** | Forward-looking risk landscape tied to specific scheduled events (budget debates, EU summits) |
---
## 📏 Template Quality Standards
Every template enforces the following mandatory requirements:
| # | Requirement | Description |
|---|-------------|-------------|
| 1 | **Evidence Tables** | All assessments must be in structured tables, not free-form prose |
| 2 | **Mermaid Diagrams** | ≥1 color-coded Mermaid diagram with `style` directives |
| 3 | **Confidence Labels** | Every assessment tagged: `HIGH` (≥80%), `MEDIUM` (60–79%), `LOW` (<60%) |
| 4 | **dok_id Citations** | Parliamentary document IDs cited for every factual claim |
| 5 | **Anti-Pattern Warnings** | Each template begins with common anti-patterns to AVOID |
| 6 | **Frontmatter** | Standard metadata: Generated, Data Sources, Documents Analyzed, Confidence |
### 🎨 Mermaid colour-coding standard (canonical)
The analysis gate ([`05-analysis-gate.md` Check 5](../../.github/prompts/05-analysis-gate.md)) iterates the `GATE_SYNTH_LIST` (16 core synthesis files including `executive-brief.md`, `swot-analysis.md`, `threat-analysis.md`, `election-2026-analysis.md`, etc.) and blocks any file that (a) has no ` ```mermaid ` block **or** (b) lacks either a `style …` directive or a `themeVariables` / `%%{init …}` block anywhere in the file. The check runs once per file, not per Mermaid block. To keep colour semantics consistent across the 35+ templates that already render Mermaid (and the 3 long-horizon templates that just received their first diagram — `cycle-trajectory.md`, `horizon-pir-rollforward.md`, `parliamentary-season.md`) every diagram MUST follow the palette below — derived from the cyberpunk article-chrome tokens documented in [`Article-Generation.md` §"Light and dark mode"](../../Article-Generation.md#light-and-dark-mode).
| Hex | Semantic role | Colour use |
|---|---|---|
| `#1565C0` | Primary blue | Structural / process / data-source nodes (BLUF anchor, ingest, predecessor run) |
| `#2E7D32` | Success green | Strengths · opportunities · "active" · low-risk indicators |
| `#FF9800` | Warning orange | Watch items · medium severity · mid-mandate years |
| `#D32F2F` | Danger red | Threats · weaknesses · falsification triggers · high severity |
| `#7B1FA2` | Strategic purple | Synthesis · scenarios · long-horizon projections |
| `#00897B` | Data teal | Data products · cycle-spanning PIRs · IMF / SCB feeds |
| `#FFBE0B` | Accent yellow (`--primary-yellow`) | Edges, accents, stroke highlights, "this run" anchor |
| `#FF006E` | Emphasis magenta (`--primary-magenta`) | New PIRs, emphasis, election-anchor pivots |
| `#616161` | Neutral grey | Archived / deprecated / pending nodes |
Every Mermaid block MUST start with the canonical init prologue so the diagram inherits the dark-mode chrome on `riksdagsmonitor.com`:
```text
%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","lineColor":"#FFBE0B","secondaryColor":"#7B1FA2","tertiaryColor":"#2E7D32","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"}}}%%
```
For multi-state diagrams (flowchart / state / sequence), prefer `classDef` blocks over per-node `style` directives so colour semantics stay consistent across the diagram. Note: `classDef` lines alone do **not** satisfy the gate's `^[[:space:]]*style[[:space:]]+` regex — the gate's colour-config check passes via the `themeVariables` / `%%{init …}` prologue above (which every block already includes):
```text
classDef bluf fill:#1565C0,color:#ffffff,stroke:#FFBE0B,stroke-width:2px
classDef opp fill:#2E7D32,color:#ffffff
classDef watch fill:#FF9800,color:#000000
classDef threat fill:#D32F2F,color:#ffffff,stroke:#FFBE0B,stroke-width:2px
classDef strategic fill:#7B1FA2,color:#ffffff
classDef data fill:#00897B,color:#ffffff
classDef archive fill:#616161,color:#ffffff
```
Diagram-class guidance:
| Diagram class | Use it for | Reference templates |
|---|---|---|
| `flowchart TB / LR` | Process maps, evidence chains, attack trees, escalation paths | `executive-brief.md`, `threat-analysis.md`, `parliamentary-season.md` |
| `quadrantChart` | SWOT, risk-vs-impact, decision matrices | `swot-analysis.md` |
| `gantt` | Forward-indicator timelines, calendar windows | `forward-indicators.md` |
| `xychart-beta` | DIW scoring, quantitative SWOT, reliability trends | `significance-scoring.md`, `quantitative-swot.md`, `mcp-reliability-audit.md` |
| `graph LR` | Lightweight evidence-to-conclusion arcs | `executive-brief.md` (lead visual) |
| `sequenceDiagram` | Coalition negotiations, KU referral cycles | `political-stride-assessment.md` |
| `mindmap` | PESTLE / stakeholder fan-outs | `pestle-analysis.md`, `stakeholder-impact.md` |
Mermaid renders **client-side** in the article HTML — the aggregator passes ` ```mermaid ` fences through untouched and [`scripts/render-lib/markdown/mermaid-preprocess.ts`](../../scripts/render-lib/markdown/mermaid-preprocess.ts) rewrites them to `` before the unified pipeline ([`scripts/render-lib/markdown/pipeline.ts`](../../scripts/render-lib/markdown/pipeline.ts)) runs. `js/lib/mermaid-init.mjs` then upgrades each block to SVG after page load against the same-origin vendored runtime under `js/lib/mermaid/`. The full HTML rendering chain is documented in [`Article-Generation.md` §"Mermaid support"](../../Article-Generation.md#mermaid-support).
#### 🚧 Authoring rule — every `\`\`\`mermaid` opening fence MUST have a closing `\`\`\``
Every Mermaid diagram MUST be terminated by its own `\`\`\`` line on a line of its own. This is a hard contract, enforced by `scripts/validate-article.ts` ([`unclosed-mermaid-fence`](../../scripts/validate-article.ts) + [`mermaid-coverage-regression`](../../scripts/validate-article.ts)). When the AI agent drops a closing fence the renderer recovers gracefully (`preprocessMermaidFences` uses the next opening fence as an implicit close, so each diagram still becomes its own ``), but the source artifact is rejected at PR review because:
1. The IDE preview merges the unclosed diagram with everything that follows until the next `\`\`\`` — the in-editor reading experience is broken.
2. The analysis-gate Check 5 may falsely pass even though the diagram body is unparseable.
3. Downstream `gh aw mcp inspect` audits report the wrong diagram count.
Pattern to follow in every template:
```text
\`\`\`mermaid
%%{init: …}%%
flowchart LR
A --> B
\`\`\`
```
Pattern to NEVER ship:
```text
\`\`\`mermaid
flowchart LR
A --> B
← missing closing \`\`\`
## Next section
```
---
## 📄 Template Selection by Data Category
| MCP Data Category | Primary Templates | Supporting Templates |
|------------------|-------------------|---------------------|
| `betankanden/` (committee reports) | Political Classification + SWOT Analysis | Stakeholder Impact, Significance Scoring |
| `propositioner/` (propositions) | Risk Assessment + Stakeholder Impact | Political Classification, Significance Scoring |
| `motioner/` (motions) | Political Classification + SWOT + Significance | Risk Assessment |
| `interpellationer/` (interpellations) | Threat Analysis + Stakeholder Impact | Political Classification |
| `voteringar/` (votes) | Political Classification + SWOT + Threat | Risk Assessment |
| `anforanden/` (speeches) | Stakeholder Impact + Significance Scoring | Political Classification |
| `calendar_events/` | Significance Scoring + Risk Assessment | Stakeholder Impact |
| `fragor/` (written questions) | Political Classification + Significance | Stakeholder Impact |
---
## 📅 Temporal Aggregation
```mermaid
flowchart TD
D["📅 Daily per-workflow analysis\nanalysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/slug/"] --> W["📅 Weekly aggregation\nanalysis/weekly/YYYY-WNN/"]
W --> M["📅 Monthly strategic brief\nanalysis/monthly/YYYY-MM/"]
D --> AI["🤖 AI cross-article synthesis\nanalysis/daily/YYYY-MM-DD/synthesis-summary.md"]
AI --> W
style D fill:#2E7D32,stroke:#2E7D32,color:#FFFFFF
style W fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
style M fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,color:#FFFFFF
style AI fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,color:#FFFFFF
```
| Scope | Format | Example | Cadence |
|-------|--------|---------|---------|
| Daily | `YYYY-MM-DD` | `2026-03-31/` | Every workflow run |
| Weekly | `YYYY-WNN` | `2026-W14/` | `news-weekly-review` aggregation |
| Monthly | `YYYY-MM` | `2026-03/` | `news-monthly-review` aggregation |
| Cross-article | `synthesis-summary.md` | Daily synthesis | Per-workflow synthesis |
---
## 📚 Related Documentation
| Document | Focus | Link |
|----------|-------|------|
| **Analysis README** | Directory overview and critical rules | [analysis/README.md](../README.md) |
| **Methodologies README** | Methodology framework catalog | [analysis/methodologies/README.md](../methodologies/README.md) |
| **AI-Driven Guide** | Master protocol for AI analysis | [ai-driven-analysis-guide.md](../methodologies/ai-driven-analysis-guide.md) |
| **Prompts v2** | AI prompt library | [scripts/prompts/v2/](../../scripts/prompts/v2/) |
| **ISMS-PUBLIC** | Hack23 ISMS security standards | [Hack23/ISMS-PUBLIC](https://github.com/Hack23/ISMS-PUBLIC) |
---
📊 Hack23 AB — Structured Intelligence Through Disciplined Templates
