The architecture diagram hard-codes EP MCP Server as v1.1.19, but the rest of the repo configuration uses v1.1.20 (e.g., .github/copilot-mcp.json and copilot-setup-steps.yml). Update the diagram to match the actual MCP server version to avoid documentation drift.

The diagram labels the quality gate as “7-check validation”, but elsewhere the quality gate is described as a checklist + a 5-dimension weighted score (and the template README’s sequence shows 6 explicit checks). Consider removing the hard-coded check count or aligning all docs to the same set/count of checks.

This directory structure introduces an analysis/data/ persistent MCP data repository, but that directory does not currently exist in the repository. Either add the directory (and update workflows/scripts accordingly) or adjust the documentation so it reflects the actual on-disk layout.

This interconnection map introduces risk dimensions (Legislative/Electoral/Democratic) that don’t match the six risk categories defined in the risk methodology (grand-coalition-stability, policy-implementation, institutional-integrity, economic-governance, social-cohesion, geopolitical-standing). Align the dimension names here (or add an explicit mapping) so analysts aren’t forced to translate between two competing taxonomies.

The risk interconnection diagram models only 5 categories (CR/PR/IR/ER/XR) even though this document defines six EP political risk categories earlier (including economic-governance and social-cohesion). Please update the diagram (and the strength assessment table labels like “Coalition → Legislative”) to reflect the full six-category taxonomy consistently.

“NI MEPs” is ambiguous for readers and conflicts with the style guidance to spell out abbreviations for multi-language friendliness. Spell out the term (e.g., Non-Inscrits) on first use or replace with a clearer description.

This section instructs to “Color-code by feasibility”, but the template provides fixed colors without explaining what each color represents (and some nodes are styled red/green without any feasibility scale/legend). Add a short legend (e.g., green=high feasibility, yellow=medium, red=low) or adjust the instruction to match the provided styling.

The catalog assigns “Version: 3.0” to the AI-Driven Analysis Guide (and later to the other methodology docs), but the referenced documents’ own metadata currently shows lower versions (e.g., ai-driven-analysis-guide.md = 2.0; political-style-guide.md = 2.0; political-risk-methodology.md and political-classification-guide.md = 1.0). Please align the version numbers across the catalog and the individual documents so readers can trust what is current.

Step 6 suggests calculating “cumulative chain probability” by multiplying probabilities along each path, but the methodology’s Likelihood input is a 1–5 ordinal scale (not a probability value) and no mapping from 1–5 to probabilities is provided. Either define an explicit probability mapping (e.g., 1=<5%, 2=5–20%, etc.) for use in multiplication, or remove the probability multiplication instruction to avoid false precision.

The Evidence Strength Table uses fractional likelihood adjustments (±0.5) but the likelihood scale is defined as integer 1–5 earlier in the methodology. Clarify whether fractional likelihood values are allowed (and how they should be rounded/represented), or restrict adjustments to whole steps to stay consistent with the scoring model.

This file adds substantial new ‘Advanced Technique’ content, but the document metadata at the top still says Version 1.0 / Last Updated 2026-03-28. Please update the version and last-updated fields so readers can tell they’re using the revised methodology and so it stays consistent with the v2.0/v3.0 framework documentation.

This framework now includes multiple new ‘Advanced Technique’ sections, but the metadata header still shows Version 1.0 / Last Updated 2026-03-28. Please bump/update the document metadata to reflect these changes and keep it consistent with the rest of the upgraded methodology set.

Advanced dimensions (Political Temperature Index, Strategic Significance, Coalition Impact Vector) are introduced below, but the document header metadata still indicates Version 1.0 / Last Updated 2026-03-28. Please update version/last-updated to reflect this revision (and keep it aligned with the other v2.0/v3.0 methodology docs).

Rule 4 explicitly rejects STRIDE for political intelligence, but Rule 6 cites THREAT_MODEL.md as a quality standard even though that document is a STRIDE-based security threat model. This is contradictory guidance; please replace THREAT_MODEL.md with a Political Threat Landscape example/reference (e.g., analysis/methodologies/political-threat-framework.md or a representative analysis artifact) so the exemplar matches the “NOT STRIDE” rule.

The sequence diagram states “Download data (scripts ONLY download)”, but the broader docs (e.g., analysis/README.md Rule 3) allow scripts to also do non-analytical tasks like validating output format/quality-gate checks, cataloging pending files, and moving/renaming files. Consider rewording this to clarify that scripts may download + perform validation/housekeeping, while AI performs all analytical content generation.

In the Attack Tree instructions you define a feasibility color legend (🟢/🟡/🟠/🔴), but the example styles don’t consistently follow it (e.g., ROOT is styled red and some path nodes are orange regardless of feasibility). This makes the legend ambiguous; either align the example node styles with the feasibility legend or clarify what each color represents for ROOT/path nodes vs leaf steps.

This emoji legend references STRIDE terminology ("Elevation threat", "Spoofing threat"), but the surrounding documentation explicitly rejects STRIDE for political intelligence. To avoid mixed guidance, remove STRIDE labels here or map these emojis to the Political Threat Landscape dimensions (e.g., Institutional Pressure / Transparency Deficit) instead.