strategic-communication-analysis
SKILL.md
Strategic Communication Analysis Skill
Purpose
This skill provides comprehensive methodologies for analyzing strategic political communication in Swedish parliament and media. It enables intelligence operatives to identify narrative framing techniques, detect coordinated messaging campaigns, assess media bias, analyze parliamentary discourse patterns, and identify information warfare tactics through evidence-based analysis of speeches, documents, and media coverage.
When to Use This Skill
Apply this skill when:
- ✅ Analyzing parliamentary debate rhetoric and framing strategies
- ✅ Detecting coordinated messaging campaigns across party members
- ✅ Identifying media bias in political coverage
- ✅ Assessing influence operations and disinformation patterns
- ✅ Analyzing discourse shifts over time (framing evolution)
- ✅ Evaluating communication effectiveness of political figures
- ✅ Detecting astroturfing and inauthentic amplification
- ✅ Mapping information ecosystems and echo chambers
- ✅ Identifying counter-narrative opportunities
Do NOT use for:
- ❌ Content censorship or suppression of legitimate political speech
- ❌ Manipulating public discourse through disinformation
- ❌ Violating freedom of expression protections
- ❌ Personal attacks on communication style without policy substance
Strategic Communication Framework
Five Analytical Dimensions
The CIA platform analyzes political communication across five critical dimensions to understand messaging strategies and influence dynamics:
graph TB
subgraph "Communication Intelligence Collection"
A1[📝 Parliamentary Documents<br/>89K+ documents<br/>Motions, interpellations, bills]
A2[🎤 Debate Transcripts<br/>Parliamentary speeches<br/>Committee testimony]
A3[📰 Media Coverage<br/>News articles, press releases<br/>Social media posts]
A4[🗳️ Voting Records<br/>Action-rhetoric alignment<br/>Behavior vs. statements]
A5[🤝 Coalition Messaging<br/>Party coordination<br/>Message discipline]
end
subgraph "Communication Analysis"
A1 --> B1[Narrative Framing Analysis]
A2 --> B2[Discourse Pattern Recognition]
A3 --> B3[Media Bias Detection]
A4 --> B4[Rhetoric-Action Gap Analysis]
A5 --> B5[Coordination Assessment]
end
subgraph "Intelligence Products"
B1 --> C1[Frame Identification]
B2 --> C2[Discourse Networks]
B3 --> C3[Bias Profiles]
B4 --> C4[Credibility Assessment]
B5 --> C5[Campaign Detection]
end
subgraph "Strategic Intelligence"
C1 & C2 & C3 & C4 & C5 --> D[📊 Communication Profile]
D --> E[Influence Assessment]
D --> F[Disinformation Detection]
D --> G[Counter-Narrative Strategy]
end
style A1 fill:#e1f5ff
style A2 fill:#e1f5ff
style A3 fill:#e1f5ff
style A4 fill:#e1f5ff
style A5 fill:#e1f5ff
style D fill:#ffe6cc
style E fill:#ccffcc
style F fill:#ffcccc
style G fill:#fff9cc
1. Narrative Framing Analysis
Framing Theory Application
Political actors use framing to define issues in ways that advantage their positions. The CIA platform identifies dominant frames through document and speech analysis.
Database Views:
view_riksdagen_politician_document- All politician-authored documentsview_riksdagen_document_content- Full document text for NLP analysisview_riksdagen_document_element- Document structure and metadata
Frame Identification System
from typing import Dict, List, Tuple
import re
from collections import Counter
from dataclasses import dataclass
@dataclass
class Frame:
"""Political framing structure."""
frame_type: str
keywords: List[str]
metaphors: List[str]
values: List[str]
emotional_tone: str
class NarrativeFramingAnalyzer:
"""
Identifies narrative frames in political communication.
Based on Entman (1993) framing theory:
1. Problem definition
2. Causal interpretation
3. Moral evaluation
4. Treatment recommendation
"""
# Swedish political frame templates
FRAME_TEMPLATES = {
'ECONOMIC_COMPETITIVENESS': Frame(
frame_type='ECONOMIC_COMPETITIVENESS',
keywords=['konkurrenskraft', 'tillväxt', 'företagande', 'innovation', 'export'],
metaphors=['motor', 'drivkraft', 'framtid'],
values=['prosperity', 'efficiency', 'growth'],
emotional_tone='aspirational'
),
'SOCIAL_JUSTICE': Frame(
frame_type='SOCIAL_JUSTICE',
keywords=['rättvisa', 'jämlikhet', 'solidaritet', 'välfärd', 'trygghet'],
metaphors=['broar', 'skyddsnät', 'gemenskap'],
values=['equality', 'fairness', 'solidarity'],
emotional_tone='empathetic'
),
'NATIONAL_SECURITY': Frame(
frame_type='NATIONAL_SECURITY',
keywords=['säkerhet', 'försvar', 'gränser', 'suveränitet', 'beredskap'],
metaphors=['skydd', 'fort', 'försvar'],
values=['safety', 'sovereignty', 'protection'],
emotional_tone='protective'
),
'ENVIRONMENTAL_CRISIS': Frame(
frame_type='ENVIRONMENTAL_CRISIS',
keywords=['klimat', 'miljö', 'hållbarhet', 'förnybart', 'utsläpp'],
metaphors=['kris', 'hotet', 'framtiden'],
values=['sustainability', 'responsibility', 'legacy'],
emotional_tone='urgent'
),
'PERSONAL_FREEDOM': Frame(
frame_type='PERSONAL_FREEDOM',
keywords=['frihet', 'valfrihet', 'självständighet', 'ansvar', 'rättigheter'],
metaphors=['kedjor', 'byråkrati', 'frihet'],
values=['liberty', 'autonomy', 'choice'],
emotional_tone='libertarian'
),
'IMMIGRATION_CONTROL': Frame(
frame_type='IMMIGRATION_CONTROL',
keywords=['integration', 'migration', 'ordning', 'kontroll', 'ansvar'],
metaphors=['ordning', 'gränser', 'system'],
values=['order', 'fairness', 'sustainability'],
emotional_tone='controlled'
)
}
def analyze_document_framing(self, document_id: str) -> Dict:
"""
Analyzes narrative framing in a parliamentary document.
Returns:
- Dominant frame(s)
- Frame intensity score
- Supporting evidence (keywords, metaphors)
- Frame consistency over time
"""
query = """
SELECT
d.document_id,
d.document_type,
d.title,
d.subtitle,
dc.text_content,
p.person_id,
p.first_name || ' ' || p.last_name as author,
p.party,
d.created_date,
d.issue_category,
d.issue_subcategory
FROM document d
JOIN document_content dc ON d.document_id = dc.document_id
JOIN document_person dp ON d.document_id = dp.document_id
JOIN person p ON dp.person_id = p.person_id
WHERE d.document_id = %s
"""
doc = pd.read_sql(query, self.connection, params=[document_id]).iloc[0]
# Analyze text for frame indicators
text_content = doc['text_content'].lower()
title_content = f"{doc['title']} {doc['subtitle']}".lower()
frame_scores = {}
frame_evidence = {}
for frame_name, frame in self.FRAME_TEMPLATES.items():
# Score based on keyword presence
keyword_score = sum(
text_content.count(keyword) for keyword in frame.keywords
) / len(frame.keywords)
# Score based on metaphor usage
metaphor_score = sum(
text_content.count(metaphor) * 2 for metaphor in frame.metaphors
) / len(frame.metaphors)
# Bonus for title/subtitle framing (higher salience)
title_score = sum(
title_content.count(keyword) * 3 for keyword in frame.keywords
) / len(frame.keywords)
total_score = keyword_score + metaphor_score + title_score
frame_scores[frame_name] = round(total_score, 2)
frame_evidence[frame_name] = {
'keywords_found': [kw for kw in frame.keywords if kw in text_content],
'metaphors_found': [m for m in frame.metaphors if m in text_content],
'title_framing': any(kw in title_content for kw in frame.keywords)
}
# Identify dominant frame(s)
sorted_frames = sorted(frame_scores.items(), key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True)
dominant_frame = sorted_frames[0][0] if sorted_frames[0][1] > 3 else 'MIXED_FRAMING'
return {
'document_id': document_id,
'author': doc['author'],
'party': doc['party'],
'document_type': doc['document_type'],
'dominant_frame': dominant_frame,
'frame_scores': frame_scores,
'frame_evidence': frame_evidence[dominant_frame],
'frame_intensity': sorted_frames[0][1],
'mixed_framing': len([s for s in sorted_frames if s[1] > 2]) > 1,
'created_date': doc['created_date']
}
def analyze_party_framing_strategy(self, party_id: str, date_from: str, date_to: str) -> Dict:
"""
Analyzes a party's framing strategy over time.
Identifies:
- Consistent frames vs. tactical frame shifts
- Frame coordination across party members
- Frame evolution in response to events
"""
query = """
SELECT
d.document_id,
d.created_date,
d.issue_category,
p.person_id,
p.first_name || ' ' || p.last_name as author
FROM document d
JOIN document_person dp ON d.document_id = dp.document_id
JOIN person p ON dp.person_id = p.person_id
WHERE p.party = %s
AND d.created_date BETWEEN %s AND %s
AND d.document_type IN ('motion', 'interpellation', 'bill')
ORDER BY d.created_date
"""
documents = pd.read_sql(query, self.connection,
params=[party_id, date_from, date_to])
# Analyze each document
party_frames = []
for _, doc in documents.iterrows():
frame_analysis = self.analyze_document_framing(doc['document_id'])
frame_analysis['author'] = doc['author']
frame_analysis['created_date'] = doc['created_date']
party_frames.append(frame_analysis)
# Calculate frame consistency
frame_distribution = Counter([f['dominant_frame'] for f in party_frames])
total_docs = len(party_frames)
# Calculate coordination score
authors = list(set([f['author'] for f in party_frames]))
author_frames = {author: Counter() for author in authors}
for frame_analysis in party_frames:
author_frames[frame_analysis['author']][frame_analysis['dominant_frame']] += 1
# Coordination: Do different authors use similar frames?
coordination_score = 0
if len(authors) > 1:
top_frame = frame_distribution.most_common(1)[0][0]
authors_using_top_frame = sum(
1 for author, frames in author_frames.items()
if frames[top_frame] > 0
)
coordination_score = authors_using_top_frame / len(authors)
return {
'party': party_id,
'analysis_period': f"{date_from} to {date_to}",
'total_documents': total_docs,
'frame_distribution': dict(frame_distribution),
'dominant_party_frame': frame_distribution.most_common(1)[0][0],
'frame_consistency': frame_distribution.most_common(1)[0][1] / total_docs,
'coordination_score': round(coordination_score, 3),
'frame_diversity': len(frame_distribution),
'classification': self._classify_framing_strategy(
frame_distribution.most_common(1)[0][1] / total_docs,
coordination_score
)
}
def _classify_framing_strategy(self, consistency: float, coordination: float) -> str:
"""Classify party framing strategy."""
if consistency > 0.7 and coordination > 0.7:
return "DISCIPLINED_MESSAGING"
elif consistency > 0.5 and coordination > 0.5:
return "COORDINATED_STRATEGY"
elif consistency < 0.3 or coordination < 0.3:
return "FRAGMENTED_MESSAGING"
else:
return "ADAPTIVE_POSITIONING"
2. Media Bias Detection
Systematic Bias Analysis
Media bias affects public perception of political actors. The CIA platform systematically measures bias through coverage patterns and linguistic analysis.
@Service
public class MediaBiasDetector {
/**
* Detects systematic media bias in political coverage.
*
* Bias indicators:
* 1. Coverage frequency disparities
* 2. Sentiment bias (positive vs. negative framing)
* 3. Source selection bias (which politicians quoted)
* 4. Issue framing bias (which frames amplified)
* 5. Omission bias (what's not covered)
*/
public MediaBiasProfile analyzeBias(
String mediaOutletId,
String politicalEntity,
LocalDate startDate,
LocalDate endDate
) {
String sql = """
WITH coverage_baseline AS (
-- Calculate expected coverage based on political relevance
SELECT
political_entity_id,
entity_type,
political_relevance_score,
CASE entity_type
WHEN 'PARTY_LEADER' THEN political_relevance_score * 3
WHEN 'MINISTER' THEN political_relevance_score * 2.5
WHEN 'COMMITTEE_CHAIR' THEN political_relevance_score * 1.5
ELSE political_relevance_score
END as expected_coverage_weight
FROM political_entity_relevance
),
actual_coverage AS (
-- Measure actual coverage from media outlet
SELECT
mc.political_entity_id,
COUNT(DISTINCT mc.article_id) as article_count,
AVG(mc.sentiment_score) as avg_sentiment,
SUM(mc.prominence_score) as total_prominence,
-- Linguistic indicators
AVG(LENGTH(mc.quote_text)) as avg_quote_length,
COUNT(CASE WHEN mc.is_primary_source THEN 1 END) as primary_source_count,
-- Framing indicators
mc.dominant_frame,
mc.frame_valence
FROM media_coverage mc
WHERE mc.media_outlet_id = :mediaOutletId
AND mc.coverage_date BETWEEN :startDate AND :endDate
GROUP BY mc.political_entity_id, mc.dominant_frame, mc.frame_valence
),
bias_analysis AS (
SELECT
cb.political_entity_id,
cb.entity_type,
cb.expected_coverage_weight,
COALESCE(ac.article_count, 0) as actual_articles,
COALESCE(ac.total_prominence, 0) as actual_prominence,
COALESCE(ac.avg_sentiment, 0) as sentiment_score,
-- Coverage bias: Actual vs. Expected
CASE
WHEN cb.expected_coverage_weight = 0 THEN 0
ELSE (COALESCE(ac.article_count, 0)::float /
NULLIF(cb.expected_coverage_weight, 0)) - 1
END as coverage_bias_ratio,
-- Sentiment bias: Deviation from neutral (0.5)
ABS(COALESCE(ac.avg_sentiment, 0.5) - 0.5) * 2 as sentiment_bias_magnitude,
CASE
WHEN COALESCE(ac.avg_sentiment, 0.5) > 0.5 THEN 'POSITIVE_BIAS'
WHEN COALESCE(ac.avg_sentiment, 0.5) < 0.5 THEN 'NEGATIVE_BIAS'
ELSE 'NEUTRAL'
END as sentiment_bias_direction
FROM coverage_baseline cb
LEFT JOIN actual_coverage ac ON cb.political_entity_id = ac.political_entity_id
WHERE cb.political_entity_id = :politicalEntity
)
SELECT
*,
-- Overall bias score (0-100, higher = more biased)
(
ABS(coverage_bias_ratio) * 40 +
sentiment_bias_magnitude * 60
) as overall_bias_score,
-- Bias classification
CASE
WHEN ABS(coverage_bias_ratio) > 0.5 AND sentiment_bias_magnitude > 0.3
THEN 'HIGH_BIAS'
WHEN ABS(coverage_bias_ratio) > 0.3 OR sentiment_bias_magnitude > 0.2
THEN 'MODERATE_BIAS'
ELSE 'LOW_BIAS'
END as bias_classification
FROM bias_analysis
""";
return jdbcTemplate.queryForObject(sql, MediaBiasProfile.class,
Map.of(
"mediaOutletId", mediaOutletId,
"politicalEntity", politicalEntity,
"startDate", startDate,
"endDate", endDate
));
}
}
Media Bias Taxonomy
| Bias Type | Detection Method | Risk Level | Strategic Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage Bias | Frequency disparity > 50% | HIGH | Systematic visibility manipulation |
| Sentiment Bias | Sentiment deviation > 0.30 | HIGH | Reputation attack or promotion |
| Source Selection Bias | Quote frequency imbalance | MODERATE | Platform control |
| Framing Bias | Consistent negative/positive frames | HIGH | Narrative control |
| Omission Bias | Missing coverage of significant events | CRITICAL | Information suppression |
| Contextualization Bias | Selective context inclusion | MODERATE | Meaning manipulation |
3. Discourse Network Analysis
Parliamentary Discourse Patterns
Political discourse reveals coalition structures, ideological alignment, and influence networks through linguistic similarity and interaction patterns.
-- Discourse Network Construction
WITH politician_linguistic_profile AS (
SELECT
p.person_id,
p.first_name || ' ' || p.last_name as name,
p.party,
-- Aggregate linguistic features from documents
STRING_AGG(DISTINCT dc.keyword, ', ') as frequent_keywords,
STRING_AGG(DISTINCT dc.topic, ', ') as discussed_topics,
AVG(dc.complexity_score) as avg_linguistic_complexity,
AVG(dc.emotional_intensity) as avg_emotional_intensity,
-- Document types as communication preferences
COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN d.document_type = 'motion' THEN d.document_id END) as motion_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN d.document_type = 'interpellation' THEN d.document_id END) as question_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT CASE WHEN d.document_type = 'debate_speech' THEN d.document_id END) as speech_count
FROM person p
JOIN document_person dp ON p.person_id = dp.person_id
JOIN document d ON dp.document_id = d.document_id
JOIN document_content dc ON d.document_id = dc.document_id
WHERE d.created_date >= NOW() - INTERVAL '2 years'
GROUP BY p.person_id, p.first_name, p.last_name, p.party
),
discourse_similarity AS (
-- Calculate linguistic similarity between politicians
SELECT
p1.person_id as person_a,
p2.person_id as person_b,
p1.name as name_a,
p2.name as name_b,
p1.party as party_a,
p2.party as party_b,
-- Keyword overlap (Jaccard similarity)
(
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT k.keyword)::float /
NULLIF(
COUNT(DISTINCT k1.keyword) + COUNT(DISTINCT k2.keyword) - COUNT(DISTINCT k.keyword),
0
)
FROM (
SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p1.frequent_keywords, ', ')) as keyword
INTERSECT
SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p2.frequent_keywords, ', ')) as keyword
) k,
(SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p1.frequent_keywords, ', ')) as keyword) k1,
(SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p2.frequent_keywords, ', ')) as keyword) k2
) as keyword_similarity,
-- Topic overlap
(
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT t.topic)::float /
NULLIF(
COUNT(DISTINCT t1.topic) + COUNT(DISTINCT t2.topic) - COUNT(DISTINCT t.topic),
0
)
FROM (
SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p1.discussed_topics, ', ')) as topic
INTERSECT
SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p2.discussed_topics, ', ')) as topic
) t,
(SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p1.discussed_topics, ', ')) as topic) t1,
(SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p2.discussed_topics, ', ')) as topic) t2
) as topic_similarity,
-- Stylistic similarity
1 - ABS(p1.avg_linguistic_complexity - p2.avg_linguistic_complexity) as style_similarity,
1 - ABS(p1.avg_emotional_intensity - p2.avg_emotional_intensity) as tone_similarity,
-- Overall discourse similarity
(
COALESCE((
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT k.keyword)::float /
NULLIF(
COUNT(DISTINCT k1.keyword) + COUNT(DISTINCT k2.keyword) - COUNT(DISTINCT k.keyword),
0
)
FROM (
SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p1.frequent_keywords, ', ')) as keyword
INTERSECT
SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p2.frequent_keywords, ', ')) as keyword
) k,
(SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p1.frequent_keywords, ', ')) as keyword) k1,
(SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p2.frequent_keywords, ', ')) as keyword) k2
), 0) * 0.4 +
COALESCE((
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT t.topic)::float /
NULLIF(
COUNT(DISTINCT t1.topic) + COUNT(DISTINCT t2.topic) - COUNT(DISTINCT t.topic),
0
)
FROM (
SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p1.discussed_topics, ', ')) as topic
INTERSECT
SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p2.discussed_topics, ', ')) as topic
) t,
(SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p1.discussed_topics, ', ')) as topic) t1,
(SELECT unnest(string_to_array(p2.discussed_topics, ', ')) as topic) t2
), 0) * 0.3 +
(1 - ABS(p1.avg_linguistic_complexity - p2.avg_linguistic_complexity)) * 0.15 +
(1 - ABS(p1.avg_emotional_intensity - p2.avg_emotional_intensity)) * 0.15
) as discourse_similarity_score
FROM politician_linguistic_profile p1
CROSS JOIN politician_linguistic_profile p2
WHERE p1.person_id < p2.person_id -- Avoid duplicates
)
SELECT
person_a,
person_b,
name_a,
name_b,
party_a,
party_b,
discourse_similarity_score,
-- Network interpretation
CASE
WHEN discourse_similarity_score > 0.7 THEN 'STRONG_DISCOURSE_ALIGNMENT'
WHEN discourse_similarity_score > 0.5 THEN 'MODERATE_ALIGNMENT'
WHEN discourse_similarity_score > 0.3 THEN 'WEAK_ALIGNMENT'
ELSE 'DISCOURSE_DIVERGENCE'
END as relationship_type,
-- Cross-party discourse bridges (important for coalition intelligence)
CASE
WHEN party_a != party_b AND discourse_similarity_score > 0.5
THEN 'CROSS_PARTY_BRIDGE'
ELSE NULL
END as bridge_indicator
FROM discourse_similarity
WHERE discourse_similarity_score > 0.3 -- Filter weak connections
ORDER BY discourse_similarity_score DESC;
4. Coordinated Campaign Detection
Messaging Synchronization Analysis
Detecting coordinated messaging campaigns reveals strategic communication planning and potential influence operations.
from datetime import timedelta
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
class CoordinatedCampaignDetector:
"""
Detects coordinated messaging campaigns through temporal and content analysis.
Indicators of coordination:
1. Temporal clustering (simultaneous messaging)
2. Message consistency (identical or near-identical content)
3. Hashtag/keyword coordination
4. Amplification patterns (coordinated sharing)
5. Strategic timing (event-based synchronization)
"""
def detect_campaign(
self,
party_id: str,
date_from: str,
date_to: str,
time_window_hours: int = 24
) -> Dict:
"""
Detects coordinated messaging campaigns within a party.
Returns campaign indicators and coordination metrics.
"""
query = """
SELECT
d.document_id,
d.created_date,
d.title,
d.subtitle,
dc.text_content,
dc.keywords,
p.person_id,
p.first_name || ' ' || p.last_name as author,
p.party
FROM document d
JOIN document_content dc ON d.document_id = dc.document_id
JOIN document_person dp ON d.document_id = dp.document_id
JOIN person p ON dp.person_id = p.person_id
WHERE p.party = %s
AND d.created_date BETWEEN %s AND %s
AND d.document_type IN ('motion', 'interpellation', 'press_release')
ORDER BY d.created_date
"""
documents = pd.read_sql(query, self.connection,
params=[party_id, date_from, date_to])
if len(documents) < 5:
return {'campaign_detected': False, 'reason': 'Insufficient data'}
# 1. Temporal Clustering Analysis
documents['created_date'] = pd.to_datetime(documents['created_date'])
time_window = timedelta(hours=time_window_hours)
temporal_clusters = []
for i, doc in documents.iterrows():
cluster_docs = documents[
(documents['created_date'] >= doc['created_date']) &
(documents['created_date'] <= doc['created_date'] + time_window)
]
if len(cluster_docs) >= 3: # At least 3 documents in time window
temporal_clusters.append({
'start_time': doc['created_date'],
'document_count': len(cluster_docs),
'authors': cluster_docs['author'].tolist(),
'document_ids': cluster_docs['document_id'].tolist()
})
# 2. Content Similarity Analysis
# Calculate keyword overlap for temporal clusters
coordinated_clusters = []
for cluster in temporal_clusters:
cluster_docs = documents[documents['document_id'].isin(cluster['document_ids'])]
# Extract keywords from all documents in cluster
all_keywords = []
for _, doc in cluster_docs.iterrows():
if doc['keywords']:
all_keywords.extend([k.strip() for k in doc['keywords'].split(',')])
# Calculate keyword coordination
keyword_freq = Counter(all_keywords)
repeated_keywords = [k for k, count in keyword_freq.items() if count >= 2]
coordination_score = len(repeated_keywords) / max(len(set(all_keywords)), 1)
if coordination_score > 0.4: # 40% keyword overlap threshold
coordinated_clusters.append({
**cluster,
'coordination_score': coordination_score,
'shared_keywords': repeated_keywords[:10] # Top 10
})
# 3. Statistical Significance Test
# Test if temporal clustering is statistically significant
expected_cluster_rate = len(documents) / ((date_to - date_from).days * 24 / time_window_hours)
observed_clusters = len(temporal_clusters)
# Poisson test for clustering significance
p_value = stats.poisson.sf(observed_clusters - 1, expected_cluster_rate)
campaign_detected = (
len(coordinated_clusters) >= 2 and
p_value < 0.05 and
any(c['coordination_score'] > 0.5 for c in coordinated_clusters)
)
return {
'campaign_detected': campaign_detected,
'party': party_id,
'analysis_period': f"{date_from} to {date_to}",
'total_documents': len(documents),
'temporal_clusters': len(temporal_clusters),
'coordinated_clusters': len(coordinated_clusters),
'statistical_significance': p_value < 0.05,
'p_value': round(p_value, 4),
'coordination_details': coordinated_clusters[:5], # Top 5 campaigns
'assessment': self._assess_campaign_sophistication(
len(coordinated_clusters),
max([c['coordination_score'] for c in coordinated_clusters], default=0)
)
}
def _assess_campaign_sophistication(self, cluster_count: int, max_coordination: float) -> str:
"""Assess campaign coordination sophistication."""
if cluster_count >= 5 and max_coordination > 0.7:
return "HIGHLY_COORDINATED_CAMPAIGN"
elif cluster_count >= 3 and max_coordination > 0.5:
return "MODERATELY_COORDINATED_CAMPAIGN"
elif cluster_count >= 2:
return "EMERGING_COORDINATION"
else:
return "ORGANIC_MESSAGING"
5. Rhetoric-Action Gap Analysis
Credibility Assessment Through Alignment Analysis
Politicians often promise one thing and vote another. The CIA platform quantifies this gap to assess credibility.
@Component
public class RhetoricActionGapAnalyzer {
/**
* Measures the gap between stated positions and voting behavior.
*
* High gap indicates:
* - Strategic positioning without commitment
* - Public deception
* - Coalition pressure overriding stated principles
* - Populist rhetoric vs. elite voting
*/
public RhetoricActionProfile analyzeGap(String politicianId) {
String sql = """
WITH politician_rhetoric AS (
-- Extract policy positions from documents
SELECT
dp.person_id,
d.issue_category,
d.issue_subcategory,
dc.stance, -- Extracted stance: 'support', 'oppose', 'neutral'
dc.stance_confidence_score,
d.created_date as rhetoric_date
FROM document d
JOIN document_content dc ON d.document_id = dc.document_id
JOIN document_person dp ON d.document_id = dp.document_id
WHERE dp.person_id = :politicianId
AND d.document_type IN ('motion', 'interpellation', 'debate_speech')
AND dc.stance IS NOT NULL
AND d.created_date >= NOW() - INTERVAL '4 years'
),
politician_actions AS (
-- Extract voting behavior on same issues
SELECT
v.person_id,
b.issue_category,
b.issue_subcategory,
v.vote, -- 'Ja' (yes), 'Nej' (no), 'Avstår' (abstain), 'Frånvarande' (absent)
b.vote_date as action_date,
b.vote_outcome
FROM vote v
JOIN ballot b ON v.ballot_id = b.ballot_id
WHERE v.person_id = :politicianId
AND b.vote_date >= NOW() - INTERVAL '4 years'
),
rhetoric_action_alignment AS (
SELECT
pr.person_id,
pr.issue_category,
pr.issue_subcategory,
pr.stance as stated_position,
pa.vote as actual_vote,
pr.rhetoric_date,
pa.action_date,
pa.vote_outcome,
-- Calculate alignment
CASE
WHEN pr.stance = 'support' AND pa.vote = 'Ja' THEN TRUE
WHEN pr.stance = 'oppose' AND pa.vote = 'Nej' THEN TRUE
WHEN pr.stance = 'neutral' AND pa.vote = 'Avstår' THEN TRUE
ELSE FALSE
END as is_aligned,
-- Gap severity
CASE
WHEN pr.stance = 'support' AND pa.vote = 'Nej' THEN 'DIRECT_CONTRADICTION'
WHEN pr.stance = 'oppose' AND pa.vote = 'Ja' THEN 'DIRECT_CONTRADICTION'
WHEN pr.stance IN ('support', 'oppose') AND pa.vote = 'Frånvarande' THEN 'STRATEGIC_ABSENCE'
WHEN pr.stance IN ('support', 'oppose') AND pa.vote = 'Avstår' THEN 'STRATEGIC_ABSTENTION'
ELSE 'ALIGNED'
END as gap_type
FROM politician_rhetoric pr
JOIN politician_actions pa
ON pr.person_id = pa.person_id
AND pr.issue_category = pa.issue_category
AND pr.issue_subcategory = pa.issue_subcategory
AND pa.action_date >= pr.rhetoric_date -- Vote after stated position
AND pa.action_date <= pr.rhetoric_date + INTERVAL '1 year' -- Within 1 year
)
SELECT
p.person_id,
p.first_name || ' ' || p.last_name as name,
p.party,
COUNT(*) as comparable_positions,
COUNT(CASE WHEN is_aligned THEN 1 END) as aligned_count,
COUNT(CASE WHEN NOT is_aligned THEN 1 END) as misaligned_count,
-- Alignment rate
COUNT(CASE WHEN is_aligned THEN 1 END)::float /
NULLIF(COUNT(*), 0) as alignment_rate,
-- Gap breakdown
COUNT(CASE WHEN gap_type = 'DIRECT_CONTRADICTION' THEN 1 END) as contradiction_count,
COUNT(CASE WHEN gap_type = 'STRATEGIC_ABSENCE' THEN 1 END) as strategic_absence_count,
COUNT(CASE WHEN gap_type = 'STRATEGIC_ABSTENTION' THEN 1 END) as strategic_abstention_count,
-- Credibility score (0-100, higher = more credible)
ROUND(
(COUNT(CASE WHEN is_aligned THEN 1 END)::float / NULLIF(COUNT(*), 0)) * 100,
2
) as credibility_score,
-- Classification
CASE
WHEN COUNT(CASE WHEN is_aligned THEN 1 END)::float / NULLIF(COUNT(*), 0) >= 0.85
THEN 'HIGHLY_CREDIBLE'
WHEN COUNT(CASE WHEN is_aligned THEN 1 END)::float / NULLIF(COUNT(*), 0) >= 0.70
THEN 'MODERATELY_CREDIBLE'
WHEN COUNT(CASE WHEN is_aligned THEN 1 END)::float / NULLIF(COUNT(*), 0) >= 0.50
THEN 'LOW_CREDIBILITY'
ELSE 'UNRELIABLE'
END as credibility_classification
FROM view_riksdagen_politician p
JOIN rhetoric_action_alignment raa ON p.person_id = raa.person_id
WHERE p.person_id = :politicianId
GROUP BY p.person_id, p.first_name, p.last_name, p.party
""";
return jdbcTemplate.queryForObject(sql, RhetoricActionProfile.class,
Map.of("politicianId", politicianId));
}
}
Credibility Assessment Matrix
| Alignment Rate | Contradiction Count | Credibility Level | Strategic Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≥ 85% | < 5 | HIGHLY_CREDIBLE | Reliable commitments, low strategic ambiguity |
| 70-84% | 5-10 | MODERATELY_CREDIBLE | Generally trustworthy, occasional flexibility |
| 50-69% | 11-20 | LOW_CREDIBILITY | Significant rhetoric-action gaps, strategic positioning |
| < 50% | > 20 | UNRELIABLE | Systematic contradictions, populist rhetoric |
ISMS Compliance Mapping
ISO 27001:2022 Controls
| Control | Communication Analysis Application |
|---|---|
| A.5.7 - Threat intelligence | Monitor information warfare campaigns and disinformation patterns |
| A.5.9 - Inventory of information and other associated assets | Catalog media sources and communication channels |
| A.8.16 - Monitoring activities | Continuous monitoring of narrative framing and messaging campaigns |
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
| Function | Strategic Communication Integration |
|---|---|
| IDENTIFY (ID.AM) | Identify communication assets and influence networks |
| PROTECT (PR.AT) | Awareness training for disinformation detection |
| DETECT (DE.CM) | Detect coordinated campaigns and influence operations |
| RESPOND (RS.CO) | Counter-narrative response strategies |
CIS Controls v8
| Control | Application |
|---|---|
| CIS Control 6 - Access Control Management | Restrict access to communication intelligence data |
| CIS Control 13 - Network Monitoring and Defense | Monitor information ecosystem for threats |
Hack23 ISMS Policy References
This skill implements requirements from:
- Secure Development Policy - Communication intelligence quality standards
- Information Security Policy - Ethical communication analysis practices
- Privacy Policy - GDPR-compliant communication monitoring
- Threat Modeling - Information warfare threat assessment
References
Communication Theory Literature
- Entman, R. M. (1993). "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm." Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
- Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). "Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models." Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
- Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). "The Disinformation Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions." European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122-139.
- Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Database Intelligence Sources
- DATABASE_VIEW_INTELLIGENCE_CATALOG.md - Complete view documentation
- RISK_RULES_INTOP_OSINT.md - Risk rule specifications
- DATA_ANALYSIS_INTOP_OSINT.md - Analysis frameworks
- INTELLIGENCE_DATA_FLOW.md - Data flow mapping
Weekly Installs
4
Repository
hack23/ciaGitHub Stars
212
First Seen
10 days ago
Security Audits
Installed on
opencode4
claude-code4
github-copilot4
codex4
amp4
cline4