Skip to content

quantitative-swot.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
268 lines (196 loc) · 15.7 KB

quantitative-swot.md

File metadata and controls

268 lines (196 loc) · 15.7 KB
Raw

🔢 Quantitative SWOT Template — Numeric-Weight SWOT + TOWS Strategies

📌 Template Instructions: Copy to analysis/daily/{date}/{article-type}-run{N}/risk-scoring/quantitative-swot.md. 3+3+3+3 SWOT with numeric weights plus TOWS cross-quadrant strategies. See methodologies/per-artifact-methodologies.md §quantitative-swot and political-swot-framework.md.

🎯 Purpose: Weighted SWOT analysis with strategic implications derived from cross-quadrant TOWS matrix. Distinct from basic SWOT by adding numeric severity and strategic pairing.

📋 Document Metadata

Field Value
Report ID [REQUIRED: QS-YYYY-MM-DD-runNN]
Analysis Focus [REQUIRED: issue/period being analyzed]
Confidence [REQUIRED: 🟢/🟡/🔴]

1️⃣ SWOT Quadrants

Strengths (Internal, Positive)

# Strength Severity Evidence
1 [REQUIRED: specific strength] [High/Medium/Low] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words with citations]
2 [REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]
3 [REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]

Weaknesses (Internal, Negative)

# Weakness Severity Evidence
1 [REQUIRED] [High/Medium/Low] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]
2 [REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]
3 [REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]

Opportunities (External, Positive)

# Opportunity Severity Evidence
1 [REQUIRED] [High/Medium/Low] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]
2 [REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]
3 [REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]

Threats (External, Negative)

# Threat Severity Evidence
1 [REQUIRED] [High/Medium/Low] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]
2 [REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]
3 [REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED: ≥80 words]

2️⃣ SWOT Quadrant Chart

%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"quadrant1Fill":"#1565C0","quadrant2Fill":"#2E7D32","quadrant3Fill":"#FF9800","quadrant4Fill":"#D32F2F","quadrantTitleFill":"#ffffff","quadrantPointFill":"#ffffff","quadrantPointTextFill":"#ffffff","quadrantXAxisTextFill":"#ffffff","quadrantYAxisTextFill":"#ffffff"},"quadrantChart":{"chartWidth":700,"chartHeight":700,"pointLabelFontSize":14,"titleFontSize":22,"quadrantLabelFontSize":18,"xAxisLabelFontSize":16,"yAxisLabelFontSize":16}}}%%
quadrantChart
    title SWOT Analysis
    x-axis "Internal" --> "External"
    y-axis "Negative" --> "Positive"
    quadrant-1 "🔵 Opportunities (External, Positive)"
    quadrant-2 "🟢 Strengths (Internal, Positive)"
    quadrant-3 "🟠 Weaknesses (Internal, Negative)"
    quadrant-4 "🔴 Threats (External, Negative)"
Loading

3️⃣ TOWS Matrix — Strategic Implications

Opportunities (O) Threats (T)
Strengths (S) SO Strategies: [REQUIRED: ≥60 words — use strengths to capture opportunities] ST Strategies: [REQUIRED: ≥60 words — use strengths to mitigate threats]
Weaknesses (W) WO Strategies: [REQUIRED: ≥60 words — overcome weaknesses to pursue opportunities] WT Strategies: [REQUIRED: ≥60 words — minimize weaknesses and avoid threats]

4️⃣ Cross-Quadrant Interference

Which S reinforces which O:

[REQUIRED: ≥60 words mapping specific strengths to specific opportunities with amplification mechanism]

Which W amplifies which T:

[REQUIRED: ≥60 words mapping specific weaknesses to specific threats showing compound risk]

5️⃣ Scenario Bridge

SWOT configuration pointing to scenarios (per scenario-forecast.md):

SWOT Configuration Scenario Link Probability Impact
[REQUIRED: e.g. "High S1 + High O2 = Scenario 1 (progressive expansion)"] [Scenario name] [↑ / → / ↓]
[REQUIRED] [Scenario name] [...]

6️⃣ Data Sources

EP MCP tools used: get_procedures, compare_political_groups, analyze_coalition_dynamics

7️⃣ Confidence Assessment

Overall confidence: [REQUIRED: 🟢 HIGH / 🟡 MEDIUM / 🔴 LOW]

Confidence by quadrant:

Quadrant Confidence Rationale
Strengths [🟢/🟡/🔴] [REQUIRED]
Weaknesses [🟢/🟡/🔴] [REQUIRED]
Opportunities [🟢/🟡/🔴] [REQUIRED]
Threats [🟢/🟡/🔴] [REQUIRED]

8️⃣ EP MCP Tool Inputs

EP MCP tool Used for which section Notes
compare_political_groups §1 Strengths / Weaknesses (Grand-Coalition arithmetic) Returns seat shares, cohesion proxies for EPP+S&D+Renew (~408 seats / 720).
analyze_coalition_dynamics §1 Threats (PfE/ESN/ECR right-flank pressure) Surfaces anti-Establishment alliance signals.
get_voting_records §1 Strengths (S2 majority discipline) + §4 Cross-quadrant Aggregate RCV margins; flag LOW confidence if <4 weeks old.
get_procedures / track_legislation §1 Opportunities (legislative pipeline windows) COD/CNS/APP/RSP procedure codes feed O1–O3.
get_adopted_texts §1 Opportunities (delivery track-record evidence) Adopted-text count = positive O-quadrant signal.
monitor_legislative_pipeline §1 Threats (bottleneck/stall risk) Stalled procedures feed T-quadrant severity.
get_committee_documents §1 Strengths (committee throughput) ENVI/AGRI/ECON/LIBE production proxies S-quadrant.
get_speeches §3 TOWS — narrative framing for SO/ST Identifies thematic anchors for strategy text.

9️⃣ Worked Pass-1 → Pass-2 Example (AI Act enforcement, 2025-Q4)

❌ Pass-1 (thin, 28 words):

"Strength S1: Grand Coalition holds majority. This is positive for AI Act delivery. Severity High. Evidence: parliament has 720 seats and Grand Coalition has many."

✅ Pass-2 (compliant, 96 words, weighted):

S1 — Grand-Coalition floor majority on AI Act enforcement (severity 4 × confidence 0.85 = weight 3.40). EPP (188) + S&D (136) + Renew (~84) deliver ~408 of 720 seats per compare_political_groups (2025-10 snapshot), a 25-seat cushion above the 361 simple-majority threshold even with 5 % defection. get_voting_records (RCV 2025/0145(COD), 21-Oct-2025) shows the bloc held at 392/214/41 on the AI-Office implementing-act amendment — the 4th consecutive implementation-vote win. Caveat: cushion narrows to <10 seats if Renew loses >12 % on digital-rights amendments (LIBE shadow-rapporteur Strack-Zimmermann signalled dissent 2025-09).

🔟 Worked TOWS Cross-Quadrant Strategy (AI Act, 4 strategies)

Pair Strategy Severity × Conf Weight
SO (S1 Grand-Coalition × O2 Council pre-agreement on enforcement timeline) Lock implementing-act calendar to Strasbourg I+II 2025 plenaries while EPP–S&D–Renew whip discipline is at 92 %+; rapporteur (Tudorache, Renew) tables consolidated text before PfE tactical-amendment window opens. 4 × 0.80 3.20
ST (S2 ENVI/LIBE rapporteur depth × T1 PfE+ESN+ECR procedural obstruction) Deploy committee co-rapporteurship across LIBE+ITRE to pre-empt 1219(2) procedural challenges; pre-clear urgency-procedure motion with Conference of Presidents. 3 × 0.75 2.25
WO (W1 thin secondary-legislation expertise × O3 Commission technical assistance offer) Request DG-CNECT seconded national experts for ENVI secretariat; trade rapporteur slots on follow-on Cyber Resilience implementing acts to ECR for AI-Act enforcement support. 3 × 0.60 1.80
WT (W2 fragmented Greens/EFA position × T2 NGO litigation pressure) Pre-negotiate Greens floor-amendment package on biometric exemptions before Strasbourg I; commission joint EPP-Greens written explanation to head off ECJ Article 263 challenges. 4 × 0.55 2.20

1️⃣1️⃣ Anti-patterns — REJECT on Pass-2 Review

# Banned pattern Why it fails
1 SWOT cell with severity but no confidence (and therefore no weight) Breaks the 3+3+3+3 weighted ranking; weight = severity × confidence is mandatory.
2 "S1: Parliament has majority" without seat arithmetic citing compare_political_groups No EP-domain anchoring; could describe any legislature.
3 TOWS strategy that pairs S with W (or O with T) — same-axis pairing TOWS is by definition cross-axis (SO/ST/WO/WT); same-axis pairing is a different framework.
4 Threat citing "populism" or "right-wing surge" without naming PfE / ESN / ECR seat counts Generic political commentary; not EP intelligence.
5 Quadrant chart with point coordinates absent (mermaid quadrantChart with no point lines) Visual is decorative-only; quadrant chart must locate ≥4 SWOT items with x/y coords.
6 Same evidence string copy-pasted across S1+O1 (or W1+T1) Internal vs. external axis collapsed; reviewer must reject.

1️⃣2️⃣ Cross-References — Controlling Methodology

1️⃣3️⃣ Cross-Quadrant Interference — Worked Compound-Risk Example

W amplifies T (compound risk): W2 (fragmented Greens/EFA position on biometric exemptions, weight 2.20) directly amplifies T1 (PfE+ESN+ECR procedural obstruction, weight 3.30). Mechanism: every Greens floor-amendment that fails attracts a parallel ECR amendment that splits Renew, lowering Grand-Coalition cohesion from 92 % to a modelled 84 % on biometric votes — the threshold below which the AI-Office implementing-act loses its 25-seat cushion. Compound weight (geometric mean): √(2.20 × 3.30) = 2.69, ranking this pair as the top WT exposure for the run.

S reinforces O (positive synergy): S1 (Grand-Coalition floor majority, weight 3.40) reinforces O2 (Council pre-agreement window before BE/PL Council Presidency rotation), because the seat cushion gives EP negotiators credible BATNA in trilogue. Synergy weight √(3.40 × 2.80) = 3.08 — top SO pair.

1️⃣4️⃣ Stage-C Completeness Signals

scripts/validate-analysis-completeness.js checks for this artifact:

Check Threshold Source
Line floor ≥100–140 lines (per article type; see reference-quality-thresholds.json) reference-quality-thresholds.json
Required H2 substrings "SWOT", "TOWS" structural contract
Mermaid block ≥1 quadrantChart with ≥4 plotted points template visual contract
Tradecraft markers Severity × Confidence weight in every SWOT cell; Admiralty grade on each evidence string osint-tradecraft-standards.md
Anti-[TODO] scan Zero [REQUIRED] / [TBD] / [AI_ANALYSIS_REQUIRED] markers Pass-2 gate
TOWS coverage All 4 cross-quadrant pairs (SO, ST, WO, WT) populated with ≥60 words each per-artifact rule

1️⃣5️⃣ Worked Strategy-Ranking (top weighted pairs, AI-Act run)

Rank TOWS pair Weight Why it ranks here
1 SO (S1 majority × O2 Council pre-agreement) 3.20 Highest synergy weight; pre-trilogue window closing fast.
2 ST (S2 rapporteur depth × T1 PfE obstruction) 2.25 Defensive priority; Rule-71 fallback ready.
3 WT (W2 Greens fragmentation × T2 NGO litigation) 2.20 Compound-risk geometric mean 2.69 (top WT exposure).
4 WO (W1 secondary-leg expertise × O3 Cmsr help) 1.80 Lower urgency; expertise gap addressable in Q3.

Strategy budget: PREPARE rank 1 + 2 (pre-clear before plenary); MONITOR rank 3 + 4 (revisit at 30-day historical-baseline checkpoint).

Document Control: /analysis/daily/{date}/{type}-run{N}/risk-scoring/quantitative-swot.md · Template v1.2 · Depth floor: 100–140 lines (per article type; authoritative source reference-quality-thresholds.json).