Skip to content

strategic-extensions-methodology.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
496 lines (393 loc) · 25.3 KB

strategic-extensions-methodology.md

File metadata and controls

496 lines (393 loc) · 25.3 KB
Raw

Hack23 Logo

📙 Strategic Extensions Methodology

📊 Family C — Depth Layer for High-Significance European Parliament Events
🎯 Scenario Analysis · Comparative International · Devil's Advocate (ACH) · Intelligence Assessment · Methodology Reflection

Owner Version Effective Date Classification

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.1 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-04-25 (UTC) 🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-07-31 🏢 Owner: Hack23 AB (Org.nr 5595347807) | 🏷️ Classification: Public

🔄 Tradecraft Anchors

Element Value Reference
F3EAD Stage ANALYZE This methodology covers deep analytical processing — competing hypotheses, alternative futures, cross-country comparison
PIRs Served Per-file: intelligence-assessment.md declares served PIRs; devils-advocate challenges PIR-relevant hypotheses; comparative-international benchmarks fiscal and regulatory dimensions See political-style-guide.md §PIR/EEI Catalog
Admiralty Floor devils-advocate.md requires ≥[B2] evidence per hypothesis; intelligence-assessment.md Key Judgments require ≥[A1] or ≥2×[B2] See political-style-guide.md §Admiralty Code
WEP Requirement scenario-analysis.md probabilities in WEP language; intelligence-assessment.md Key Judgments with WEP + ODNI confidence See political-style-guide.md §WEP + ODNI
ICD 203 Gate Standard 2 (uncertainties), 3 (judgments vs assumptions), 4 (alternative analysis), 7 (explain changes) See political-style-guide.md §ICD 203
SAT(s) ACH, Red Team, Devil's Advocacy (devils-advocate.md); What If?, Morphological (scenario-analysis.md); Outside-In Thinking (comparative-international.md); Key Assumptions Check, Quality of Information Check (methodology-reflection.md) See political-style-guide.md §SATs

🎯 Purpose

Family C delivers analytic depth when the European Parliament event set warrants it. Where Family A narrates what happened, Family C answers:

  • What could happen next? (scenario-forecast)
  • How does this compare internationally? (comparative-international)
  • What are we getting wrong? (devils-advocate-analysis — ACH)
  • What does this mean at the intelligence level? (intelligence-assessment)
  • Was our process sound? (methodology-reflection)

Core — every run produces all 5

Family C files are always produced on every workflow run. They are not trigger-driven. Depth per file adapts to the day's DIW distribution, but the output set is stable: every folder ships scenario-forecast.md, comparative-international.md, devils-advocate-analysis.md, intelligence-assessment.md, and methodology-reflection.md.

File Behaviour on a light EP day Behaviour on a P0-dense day
scenario-forecast.md Three scenarios converge on a narrow-band consensus; file documents why branching is low Three divergent scenarios with probability-weighted indicators
comparative-international.md Compares EU policy position to ≥5 peer jurisdictions (27 member states, US, UK) Peer-country reform response with deep causal analysis
devils-advocate-analysis.md ACH on the day's #1 ranked document with ≥3 competing hypotheses Full ACH on every P0 + red-team hypothesis + Bayesian base-rate check
intelligence-assessment.md 3 Key Judgments tied to PIRs for the next 72 h 5–7 Key Judgments with confidence + warning indicators + OSINT cross-checks
⭐ methodology-reflection.md Vital run-audit gate. Evidence sufficiency, confidence distribution, source diversity, political-group-neutrality arithmetic, ≥3 concrete methodology improvements for the next cycle Same structure; skipping the file breaks the self-correction loop and fails the quality gate

⭐ methodology-reflection.md is vital. It is the only file that audits the run itself. Treat a missing or stub methodology-reflection.md as a broken workflow and revise before commit. The Pass-2 rewrite in the AI-Driven Guide Step 9 reads this file before revising every other file.

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"}}}%%
flowchart LR
    classDef famA fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#4CAF50,color:#1B5E20
    classDef scenario fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1565C0,color:#0D47A1
    classDef ach fill:#FFEBEE,stroke:#D32F2F,color:#B71C1C
    classDef intl fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#FFC107,color:#3E2723
    classDef intel fill:#F3E5F5,stroke:#7B1FA2,color:#311B92
    classDef reflect fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#FF9800,color:#BF360C,stroke-width:3px

    A[Family A<br/>synthesis + impact]:::famA
    C1[scenario-forecast.md<br/>🔮 plausible futures]:::scenario
    C2[comparative-international.md<br/>🌍 EU/MS parallels]:::intl
    C3[devils-advocate-analysis.md<br/>⚔️ ACH + Red Team]:::ach
    C4[intelligence-assessment.md<br/>🎯 strategic bottom line]:::intel
    C5[⭐ methodology-reflection.md<br/>🔬 VITAL run-audit gate]:::reflect

    A --> C1
    A --> C2
    A --> C3
    C1 --> C4
    C3 --> C4
    C2 --> C4
    C4 --> C5
Loading

🔮 Part 1 — Scenario Forecast (scenario-forecast.md)

Purpose

Explore ≥3 plausible forward paths for the top P0/P1 items over a 30–180 day horizon, each evidenced and each with pre-declared indicators so analysts can track which path materialises.

Input

  • significance-scoring.md (which items to scenario)
  • synthesis-summary.md (current narrative baseline)
  • stakeholder-map.md (actor positions that drive branching)
  • Historical baseline (Family D historical-parallels.md when available)

EP MCP Tools

  • get_meps — identify key MEPs driving scenarios
  • analyze_voting_patterns — establish voting baseline for scenario triggers
  • monitor_legislative_pipeline — track legislative bottlenecks
  • analyze_coalition_dynamics — coalition stability signals
  • get_procedures — procedural timelines for scenario milestones
  • detect_voting_anomalies — early warning signals

Output — required structure

  1. Baseline (expected) — the path implied by current stated positions + prior revealed preferences
  2. Upside — a plausible path more favourable to democratic accountability / institutional strength
  3. Downside — a plausible path more hostile to the status quo
  4. Wildcard — low-probability / high-impact branch (≤10 % probability)
  5. For each scenario:
    • Narrative (≤120 words)
    • Triggering events (≥3 concrete, each with a source or dated leading indicator)
    • Blocking events (what would make this scenario fail)
    • Probability (with 5-level confidence label)
    • Consequence summary (actor-by-actor, institution-by-institution)
    • Early-warning indicators (observable within 14 days)
  6. Scenario-probability Mermaid — color-coded probability bar
  7. Branching decision Mermaid — color-coded flowchart of key forks
  8. Cross-scenario comparison table — impact × probability × reversibility

Required Mermaid — branching paths

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff"}}}%%
flowchart TD
    classDef base fill:#9E9E9E,stroke:#424242,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef upside fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef downside fill:#FF9800,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef wild fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef fork fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723

    T0[Today — P0 procedure filed]:::base
    F1{Fork 1<br/>Committee vote ≤14d}:::fork
    F2{Fork 2<br/>Political group cohesion}:::fork

    S_base[Baseline<br/>orderly passage · 55 %]:::base
    S_up[Upside<br/>cross-group compromise · 20 %]:::upside
    S_down[Downside<br/>group fracture · 20 %]:::downside
    S_wild[Wildcard<br/>Commission censure trigger · 5 %]:::wild

    T0 --> F1
    F1 -->|pass| F2
    F1 -->|block| S_down
    F2 -->|unified| S_base
    F2 -->|split| S_up
    F1 -->|escalation| S_wild
Loading

Quality gate

  • Probabilities sum to 100 %
  • Each scenario has ≥3 named triggering events with sources
  • Each scenario has ≥2 early-warning indicators with ISO dates
  • Wildcard probability ≤10 %
  • Blocking events named and sourced
  • Cross-scenario table present

🌍 Part 2 — Comparative International (comparative-international.md)

Purpose

Place the European Parliament political event in international context so readers understand precedent, best practice, and likely interactions with EU member states, US, UK, and other peer jurisdictions.

Input

  • synthesis-summary.md (current events)
  • IMF (sole authoritative economic source) WEO / FM / IFS + World Bank WGI indicators (non-economic — governance, social, demographics), Eurostat cross-country comparables
  • Legislative databases from peer parliaments (where EU law or policy intersects)
  • Named peer countries (default set: DE, FR, IT, ES, PL, NL for large-MS benchmark; US, UK, JP for global comparators)

EP MCP Tools

  • analyze_country_delegation — per-country MEP delegation analysis
  • compare_political_groups — cross-group comparison data
  • get_adopted_texts — adopted legislation for comparison
  • get_external_documents — Commission/Council positions from third parties
  • IMF MCP (sole authoritative economic source — imf-fetch-data for WEO/FM/IFS/BOP/ER/PCPS/GFSR/EREO/FSI/GFS/DOT) + World Bank MCP tools (non-economic — governance WGI, social, health, education, environment, agriculture, innovation)
  • IMF MCP tools — fiscal forecasts

Output — required structure

  1. Issue framing — ≤80 words: what is the EU/EP question being compared?
  2. Peer-country evidence table — for each peer country:
    • Country · Approach (brief) · Outcome (quantified) · Source · Applicability to EU
  3. Best-practice extraction — three elements worth importing, with sources
  4. Incompatibility notes — three elements that do not travel well, with reasons
  5. EU-law intersection — directives, regulations, and open infringement procedures that apply
  6. Comparative Mermaid — color-coded country grid on the chosen axis (e.g. policy permissiveness)
  7. Benchmark trend chart — quantitative time-series Mermaid where IMF data exists (sole authoritative economic source); World Bank cross-refs for non-economic dimensions

Required Mermaid — peer grid

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff"}}}%%
graph LR
    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
    classDef eu fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF

    EU[European Union<br/>current EP position]:::eu
    DE[Germany<br/>high-integration approach]:::high
    FR[France<br/>medium-integration approach]:::med
    IT[Italy<br/>medium-integration approach]:::med
    PL[Poland<br/>divergent approach]:::low
    HU[Hungary<br/>critical outlier]:::crit
    US[United States<br/>external comparator]:::low

    EU -.benchmark.- DE
    EU -.benchmark.- FR
    EU -.benchmark.- IT
    EU -.benchmark.- PL
    EU -.benchmark.- HU
    EU -.benchmark.- US
Loading

Quality gate

  • ≥5 peer countries included (default EU large-MS set is acceptable)
  • Every peer row has a quantified outcome and a source URL
  • Applicability column distinguishes constitutional, institutional, and operational transferability
  • EU-law intersection lists specific directive/regulation numbers
  • Benchmark chart included when IMF data exists (primary) or WB non-economic data is relevant

⚔️ Part 3 — Devil's Advocate (devils-advocate-analysis.md)

Purpose

Apply the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) technique to stress-test the dominant interpretation of the day's events. Surfaces alternative explanations, red-teams the narrative, and quantifies residual uncertainty.

Input

  • synthesis-summary.md (candidate narrative)
  • stakeholder-map.md (declared positions)
  • Family B cross-reference-map.md (coordinated-activity patterns)
  • Open-source intelligence (OSINT) on actor history

EP MCP Tools

  • get_mep_details — actor background for ACH
  • analyze_voting_patterns — historical voting consistency
  • detect_voting_anomalies — anomalous behaviour signals
  • get_parliamentary_questions — written/oral question patterns
  • correlate_intelligence — cross-tool intelligence correlation

Output — required structure

  1. Dominant hypothesis (H1) — the synthesis's main interpretation, stated in ≤40 words
  2. Alternative hypotheses (H2, H3, … Hn, n ≥ 3) — each a genuinely different interpretation
  3. Evidence matrix — rows: observable evidence items; columns: each hypothesis; cells: Supports (+), Contradicts (−), Ambiguous (~)
  4. Diagnostic value analysis — each piece of evidence scored by how much it discriminates between hypotheses
  5. Residual uncertainty statement — what would have to be true to flip the ranking
  6. Red-team section — a maximally adversarial interpretation from the POV of a hostile actor
  7. Confidence summary — per-hypothesis confidence label
  8. ACH Mermaid — color-coded outcome network

Required Mermaid — ACH outcome

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff"}}}%%
graph TB
    classDef win fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef lose fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef neutral fill:#9E9E9E,stroke:#424242,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef red fill:#C2185B,stroke:#880E4F,color:#FFFFFF

    H1[H1 — dominant<br/>policy continuity<br/>🟩 HIGH confidence]:::win
    H2[H2 — alternative<br/>pre-election signalling<br/>🟧 MEDIUM]:::neutral
    H3[H3 — alternative<br/>coalition renegotiation<br/>🟧 MEDIUM]:::neutral
    H4[H4 — red-team<br/>deliberate misdirection<br/>🟥 LOW]:::red
    H5[H5 — rejected<br/>uncoordinated noise<br/>⬛ VERY LOW]:::lose

    Evidence[Observable evidence set] --> H1
    Evidence --> H2
    Evidence --> H3
    Evidence --> H4
    Evidence --> H5
Loading

ACH scoring rules — positive-voice

  • Produce an evidence matrix with at least 5 rows of diagnostic evidence
  • Rank hypotheses by inconsistency score (fewer − cells wins)
  • Call out the evidence item whose removal would flip the top-2 ranking — that's the "fragility point"
  • Include a hypothesis that a hostile actor would push (Red Team H_n)
  • Pre-declare a disconfirming observation that would reverse the assessment

Quality gate

  • n ≥ 3 alternative hypotheses, each substantively different
  • Evidence matrix ≥5 rows × ≥4 hypothesis columns
  • Fragility point identified
  • Red-team hypothesis present with explicit "this is adversarial framing" label
  • Residual uncertainty statement quantified

🎯 Part 4 — Intelligence Assessment (intelligence-assessment.md)

Purpose

Deliver the strategic bottom line at intelligence-community quality: single assessment paragraph per question, confidence label, alternative view, and collection gap. Compliant with ICD 203 standards.

Input

  • synthesis-summary.md · stakeholder-map.md · scenario-forecast.md · devils-advocate-analysis.md
  • Behavioral-analysis insights (actor history, cognitive biases)
  • Prior intelligence-assessment.md files from the last 30 days (for continuity)

EP MCP Tools

  • correlate_intelligence — cross-tool OSINT correlation
  • assess_mep_influence — influence scoring for key actors
  • early_warning_system — political shift detection
  • generate_report — structured analytical reports
  • generate_political_landscape — political landscape overview

Output — required structure

  1. Key Judgments (KJs) — 3–7 numbered paragraphs, each with:
    • Assertion (≤60 words)
    • Confidence label (5-level scale)
    • Key evidence (≥2 citations)
    • Alternative view (one sentence)
  2. Strategic implications — 3 bullets on what this means for decision-makers over 30–180 days
  3. Collection gaps — 3 explicit questions the evidence base does not answer
  4. Priority intelligence requirements (PIR) — 3 things the next cycle should prioritise
  5. Tradecraft note — which analytic techniques were applied (ACH, SWOT, PESTLE, Network, etc.)
  6. Intelligence Mermaid — color-coded confidence bar per KJ

Required Mermaid — KJ confidence

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff"}}}%%
graph LR
    classDef vh fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef h fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef m fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57F17,color:#3E2723
    classDef l fill:#FF9800,stroke:#E65100,color:#FFFFFF
    classDef vl fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,color:#FFFFFF

    KJ1[KJ1 — grand coalition holds<br/>🟦 VERY HIGH]:::vh
    KJ2[KJ2 — directive passes plenary<br/>🟩 HIGH]:::h
    KJ3[KJ3 — ECR-PfE coordination weakens<br/>🟧 MEDIUM]:::m
    KJ4[KJ4 — Commission censure risk<br/>🟥 LOW]:::l
    KJ5[KJ5 — snap resignation trigger<br/>⬛ VERY LOW]:::vl
Loading

Quality gate

  • 3–7 Key Judgments
  • Confidence labels distributed realistically (not all HIGH)
  • Every KJ has ≥2 citations
  • 3 collection gaps named
  • 3 PIRs formatted as answerable questions
  • Tradecraft note lists techniques explicitly

🔬 Part 5 — Methodology Reflection (methodology-reflection.md)

Purpose

Transparent analytic audit of the workflow run — what worked, what didn't, what the next cycle must fix. This file is the platform's self-correction mechanism.

Input

  • All other outputs from the workflow
  • Comparison with prior day's equivalent outputs
  • Tool-call logs from the workflow runner
  • Confidence-label distribution across outputs

Output — required structure

  1. Evidence sufficiency audit — for each Family A output, was evidence sufficient? (yes/no with reason)
  2. Confidence distribution — histogram Mermaid of confidence labels across the workflow
  3. Source diversity — percentage of claims from EP API vs Commission vs Council vs external
  4. Bias audit — were all 8 political groups given fair analytical depth given their evidence footprint? Quantify.
  5. Tradecraft audit — which techniques were applied; which were skipped and why
  6. Forward methodology adjustments — 3 concrete improvements for next cycle, each actionable
  7. Prior-period comparison — what has the methodology done better / worse vs last workflow?

Required Mermaid — confidence distribution

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff"}}}%%
pie showData
    title Confidence label distribution across this workflow
    "🟦 VERY HIGH" : 12
    "🟩 HIGH" : 34
    "🟧 MEDIUM" : 38
    "🟥 LOW" : 12
    "⬛ VERY LOW" : 4
Loading

Positive-voice bias audit rule

Produce a table of political groups × claims-about-them × depth-score (words + citations) so a reader can see neutrality arithmetically. Acceptable outcome: no group's depth deviates from the evidence-weighted average by more than 25 %.

Quality gate

  • Evidence sufficiency assessed per Family A output
  • Confidence distribution Mermaid present
  • Source diversity percentages sum to 100 %
  • Bias audit quantified with specific numbers
  • ≥3 concrete methodology adjustments named for next cycle

🛠️ Production Workflow — step-by-step

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff"}}}%%
flowchart TD
    classDef trig 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
    classDef vital fill:#FFF3E0,stroke:#FF9800,color:#BF360C,stroke-width:3px

    Trig[Family A + B complete<br/>→ Family C begins]:::trig

    S1[Step 1 — Branch paths<br/>→ scenario-forecast.md]:::step
    S2[Step 2 — International framing<br/>→ comparative-international.md]:::step
    S3[Step 3 — ACH + Red Team<br/>→ devils-advocate-analysis.md]:::step
    S4[Step 4 — Strategic bottom line<br/>→ intelligence-assessment.md]:::step
    S5[⭐ Step 5 — VITAL run-audit<br/>→ methodology-reflection.md]:::vital

    G{Gate — all 5 files<br/>produced + quality-gated?}:::gate

    O[Family C complete]:::out

    Trig --> S1
    Trig --> S2
    Trig --> S3
    S1 --> S4
    S2 --> S4
    S3 --> S4
    S4 --> S5
    S5 --> G
    G -->|pass| O
    G -->|fail| S1
Loading

✅ Family-C Completion Checklist

  • scenario-forecast.md — ≥4 scenarios · probabilities sum to 100 % · branching Mermaid · early-warning indicators with ISO dates
  • comparative-international.md — ≥5 peer countries · quantified outcomes · EU-law section · benchmark chart
  • devils-advocate-analysis.md — n ≥ 3 hypotheses · evidence matrix ≥5 rows · fragility point · red-team hypothesis
  • intelligence-assessment.md — 3–7 KJs · confidence labels · collection gaps · PIRs · tradecraft note
  • methodology-reflection.md — evidence audit · confidence distribution · bias audit · forward adjustments
  • All files use canonical color palette and 5-level confidence scale
  • All files cross-link to Family A and Family B inputs

🔗 Template bindings

Template Methodology section
analysis/templates/scenario-forecast.md Part 1 above
analysis/templates/comparative-international.md Part 2 above
analysis/templates/devils-advocate-analysis.md Part 3 above
analysis/templates/intelligence-assessment.md Part 4 above
analysis/templates/methodology-reflection.md Part 5 above

📐 Cross-references to other methodology layers

🔐 ISMS Alignment

Control How this methodology satisfies it
ISO 27001 A.5.7 (Threat intelligence) Scenario + devils-advocate + intelligence-assessment constitute structured threat intelligence
ISO 27001 A.5.31 (Legal, regulatory) Comparative-international maps EU-law intersection and TEU/TFEU constraints
NIST CSF ID.RA-3 (Threats identified) ACH surfaces alternative threat interpretations
NIST CSF ID.RA-5 (Risks prioritised) Scenario probabilities + impact enable risk ranking
CIS 17.5 (Incident response plan — decision support) Intelligence-assessment maps to decision-support doctrine
GDPR Art. 35 DPIA methodology Methodology-reflection provides audit trail
NIS2 Art. 21 Scenario analysis supports resilience planning

📄 Document Control

Owner: CEO (Intelligence Program) · Reviewer: CISO + Chief Analyst · Review Cycle: Quarterly Next Review: 2026-07-31 · Related: ai-driven-analysis-guide.md, synthesis-methodology.md, electoral-domain-methodology.md

Generated following EU Parliament Monitor Strategic Extensions Methodology v1.0 — Family C Depth Layer.