Skip to content

risk-matrix.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
298 lines (219 loc) · 15.4 KB

risk-matrix.md

File metadata and controls

298 lines (219 loc) · 15.4 KB
Raw

📊 Risk Matrix Template — 5×5 Likelihood × Impact Political Risk Grid

📌 Template Instructions: Copy to analysis/daily/{date}/{article-type}-run{N}/risk-scoring/risk-matrix.md. 5×5 Likelihood × Impact matrix with ≥5 named political risks and monitoring triggers. See methodologies/per-artifact-methodologies.md §risk-matrix and political-risk-methodology.md.

🎯 Purpose: Canonical political risk assessment tool mapping named risks to a probability-impact grid with actionable monitoring triggers.

📋 Document Metadata

Field Value
Report ID [REQUIRED: RM-YYYY-MM-DD-runNN]
Analysis Period [REQUIRED: YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD]
Risks Identified [REQUIRED: count ≥5]
Confidence [REQUIRED: 🟢/🟡/🔴]

1️⃣ Risk Roster

# Risk Name Likelihood (1-5) Impact (1-5) Score (L×I) Category
1 [REQUIRED: specific, named risk — e.g. "Grand Coalition fracture on climate policy"] [1-5] [1-5] [#] [Coalition/Policy/Institutional/External/Data]
2 [REQUIRED] [1-5] [1-5] [#] [...]
3 [REQUIRED] [1-5] [1-5] [#] [...]
4 [REQUIRED] [1-5] [1-5] [#] [...]
5 [REQUIRED] [1-5] [1-5] [#] [...]

Score validation: [REQUIRED: ✅ All scores = L × I / ❌ Errors detected]

2️⃣ 5×5 Risk Matrix

%%{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 Risk Matrix — Likelihood × Impact
    x-axis "Low Likelihood" --> "High Likelihood"
    y-axis "Low Impact" --> "High Impact"
    quadrant-1 "🔴 Critical Zone (High L, High I)"
    quadrant-2 "🟢 Elevated Zone (Low L, High I)"
    quadrant-3 "🟠 Monitored Zone (Low L, Low I)"
    quadrant-4 "🔵 Managed Zone (High L, Low I)"
    "Risk 1": [0.2, 0.8]
    "Risk 2": [0.7, 0.9]
    "Risk 3": [0.5, 0.4]
    "Risk 4": [0.1, 0.9]
    "Risk 5": [0.8, 0.6]
Loading

Note: Scale L and I scores (1-5) to (0.2-1.0) for plotting. Per political-style-guide.md §Standard quadrantChart init block, quadrant charts MUST use the dedicated quadrant init block above (not the universal init block).

Zone colors (aligned with quadrant labels above):

  • 🔴 Critical (High L, High I): Immediate mitigation required
  • 🟢 Elevated (Low L, High I): Prepare contingency
  • 🟠 Monitored (Low L, Low I): Watch only
  • 🔵 Managed (High L, Low I): Accept and monitor

3️⃣ Top-3 Risk Narratives

Risk 1: [REQUIRED: Name]

Likelihood: [1-5] · Impact: [1-5] · Score: [#]

Evidence:

[REQUIRED: ≥100 words explaining why this risk is likely and what its impact would be. Cite specific EP activity, coalition behavior, procedure IDs, or actor positions. Include stakeholder exposure analysis.]

Stakeholder exposure:

Stakeholder Exposure Level
[REQUIRED] [🟢 Low / 🟡 Medium / 🔴 High]
[REQUIRED] [...]

Monitoring trigger:

[REQUIRED: ≥40 words describing time-bounded trigger event or threshold that would signal risk escalation. Examples: "EPP cohesion on ENVI votes drops below 80% for 2 consecutive sessions", "2026-06-15: ENVI committee vote on XYZ regulation".]

Risk 2: [REQUIRED]

(Repeat structure for top-3 risks by score)

Risk 3: [REQUIRED]

4️⃣ Trend vs. Prior Run

Risk Prior L×I Current L×I Delta Explanation
[REQUIRED: risk name] [#] [#] [±#] [REQUIRED: ≥30 words — what changed?]
[REQUIRED] [#] [#] [±#] [REQUIRED]
[REQUIRED] [#] [#] [±#] [REQUIRED]

New risks this run: [REQUIRED: list or "none"]
Retired risks (no longer material): [REQUIRED: list or "none"]

5️⃣ Accept / Prepare / Monitor Decisions

Risk Decision Rationale
[REQUIRED: risk name] [Accept / Prepare / Monitor] [REQUIRED: ≥30 words — why this decision?]
[REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED]
[REQUIRED] [...] [REQUIRED]

Decision definitions:

  • Accept: Risk score <10, no mitigation action required, routine monitoring
  • Prepare: Risk score 10-15, develop contingency plan, active monitoring
  • Monitor: Risk score ≥16, immediate mitigation required, continuous watch

6️⃣ Data Sources

EP MCP tools used: get_procedures, analyze_coalition_dynamics, monitor_legislative_pipeline, get_voting_records

7️⃣ Confidence Assessment

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

Confidence by risk:

Risk Confidence Rationale
[REQUIRED] [🟢/🟡/🔴] [REQUIRED: one-line — where L/I scores are data-backed vs. judgment]
[REQUIRED] [🟢/🟡/🔴] [REQUIRED]

8️⃣ EP MCP Tool Inputs

EP MCP tool Used for which section Notes
get_procedures / track_legislation §1 Risk register (procedure-anchored risks) COD/CNS/APP procedure codes; status drives likelihood.
monitor_legislative_pipeline §1 Risk register (stall/bottleneck) Pipeline-health score feeds Likelihood column.
analyze_coalition_dynamics §1 Coalition-fracture row Two-window cohesion delta drives Likelihood.
get_voting_records §1 Trilogue-collapse / mandate-failure rows RCV margin proxies vote-fragility.
early_warning_system §2 Trend column (rising/stable/falling) Severity escalations from prior runs.
correlate_intelligence §3 Compound-risk arrows ELEVATED_ATTENTION + COALITION_FRACTURE alerts.
get_meeting_decisions §1 Procedural-risk rows Bureau / CoP rulings affecting agenda risk.
get_committee_documents §1 Implementation-slip rows (committee throughput) Volume + lateness proxies.

9️⃣ Worked Pass-1 → Pass-2 Example (Trilogue-collapse risk on AI-Office implementing act)

❌ Pass-1 (thin, 22 words):

"Trilogue collapse is possible. Likelihood medium. Impact high. Score 9. Watch the Council. Risk Owner: Rapporteur."

✅ Pass-2 (compliant, 102 words):

Risk R3 — Trilogue collapse on AI-Office implementing act, Likelihood 3 × Impact 5 = Risk Score 15 (Red). Trend ↑ vs. Run 183 (was 12). Likelihood lifted from 2 to 3 because Council general-approach (BE-PL Presidency, 14-Apr-2026) introduced 11 new recitals not in EP mandate (per track_legislation 2024/0123(COD)); EP rapporteur (Tudorache, Renew, ITRE) signalled 3 are "red lines" via get_speeches 2026-04-15. Impact remains 5 (a collapse delays AI-Office operationality past 2027 deadline, knock-on to Cyber Resilience implementation). Verdict: PREPARE — pre-clear Rule-71 consolidated-text fallback; brief Conference of Presidents on urgency-procedure alternative. Owner: Rapporteur (LIBE+ITRE jointly).

🔟 Worked 5×5 Heat-Map — Named EP Risks (current EP cycle)

Likelihood (x) × Impact (y), 1 (rare/negligible) → 5 (almost-certain/critical). Each cell carries the Accept / Prepare / Monitor verdict.

L1 Rare L2 Unlikely L3 Possible L4 Likely L5 Almost-certain
I5 Critical — R5 ECB-Commission divergence on fiscal rules PREPARE R3 Trilogue collapse — AI-Office IA 🔴 PREPARE — —
I4 Major — R4 Implementation slip — AI Act biometric provisions MONITOR R1 Coalition fracture — Grand Coalition on enlargement 🟠 PREPARE — —
I3 Moderate — R6 External shock — enlargement freeze (UA/MD) MONITOR R2 PfE+ECR procedural-obstruction surge MONITOR — —
I2 Minor — — — — —
I1 Negligible — — — — —

Heat-map summary: 1 Red (R3 trilogue collapse), 2 Orange (R1 coalition fracture, R5 ECB divergence), 3 Amber (R2, R4, R6). All Reds and Oranges → PREPARE. All Ambers → MONITOR. Zero risks → ACCEPT (any acceptance must be re-justified vs. prior-run).

1️⃣1️⃣ Verdict-Decision Rubric (Accept / Prepare / Monitor)

Score range Default verdict Override conditions
1–4 (Green) ACCEPT Override to MONITOR if trend ↑ across 2 prior runs.
5–9 (Amber) MONITOR Override to PREPARE if linked to a Red risk via §3 compound arrows.
10–14 (Orange) PREPARE Cannot downgrade; PREPARE = name owner + mitigation in §6.
15–25 (Red) PREPARE Auto-escalates to executive-brief BLUF.

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

# Banned pattern Why it fails
1 Risk score without trend column vs. prior run Cannot detect deterioration; reviewer rejects.
2 Likelihood × Impact cell with no Accept/Prepare/Monitor verdict Score without verdict is unactionable.
3 Risk description that names no specific procedure / coalition / institution Generic risks are not EP intelligence.
4 "Coalition fracture" risk without analyze_coalition_dynamics two-window delta Likelihood unsubstantiated.
5 Risk owner field blank or "TBD" / "the rapporteur" without name + group + committee Mitigation cannot be tracked.
6 Two risks with identical evidence string but different scores Internally inconsistent.
7 Heat-map with all risks clustered in one quadrant Diversity floor violated; re-think.

1️⃣3️⃣ Cross-References — Controlling Methodology

1️⃣4️⃣ Stage-C Completeness Signals

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

Check Threshold Source
Line floor ≥150 lines reference-quality-thresholds.json
Required H2 substrings "Risk Register", "Heat", "Verdict" structural contract
Mermaid block ≥1 (5×5 quadrant or matrix preferred) visual contract
Tradecraft markers WEP band per Likelihood, Admiralty per evidence; trend arrow per row osint-tradecraft-standards.md
Source diversity ≥3 EP MCP tools across the register per-artifact rule
Verdict coverage 100 % of risks tagged Accept/Prepare/Monitor; ≥1 Owner per Prepare template logic

1️⃣5️⃣ Worked Risk-Run-to-Run Trend Table

Risk ID Risk Run 182 score Run 183 score Run 184 score (current) Trend
R1 Coalition fracture — Grand-C on enlargement 8 9 12 ↑↑ (Orange)
R2 PfE+ECR procedural-obstruction surge 6 8 9 ↑ (Amber)
R3 Trilogue collapse — AI-Office IA 9 12 15 ↑↑ (Red — auto-escalate)
R4 Implementation slip — AI-Act biometrics 8 8 8 → (Amber)
R5 ECB-Commission divergence on fiscal rules 10 10 10 → (Orange)
R6 External shock — enlargement freeze (UA/MD) 6 6 6 → (Amber)

Trend-arrow rules: ↑↑ if +3 over single run; ↑ if +1-2; → if Δ ≤±1; ↓ if -2 or more.

Document Control: /analysis/daily/{date}/{type}-run{N}/risk-scoring/risk-matrix.md · Template v1.2 · Depth floor: 150 lines.