The checklist says the stakeholder analysis should cover “all 6 groups”, but the stakeholder impact template defines 8 stakeholder groups (Citizens, Government, Opposition, Business, Civil Society, International, Judiciary, Media). Update the checklist to match the template to avoid agents producing incomplete stakeholder sections.

The protocol says analysis improvement is NON-NEGOTIABLE, but the else-branch explicitly allows “skip improvement (translation-only run)” when no existing analysis is found. This contradicts the universal mandate in this PR; when no nearby analysis exists, the workflow should instruct the agent to create new analysis artifacts (per the guide/templates) rather than skipping.

Date fallback uses date +%Y-%m-%d (runner local time) in the new analysis-improvement and staging steps. Other parts of this workflow (and other workflows) use UTC dates for analysis/daily/ paths; using local time can stage/write the wrong day around midnight. Prefer date -u +%Y-%m-%d for these fallbacks to keep analysis paths consistent.

The 100-file PR limit guard only drops analysis/ once when STAGED_COUNT > 90. If translations/metadata alone still exceed the safe-outputs limit, the workflow will proceed and PR creation may fail. Consider following the existing repo pattern (multiple pruning steps and/or a hard failure) to guarantee STAGED_COUNT <= 100 before committing.

The PR creation template adds an Analysis files improved: {analysis_count} placeholder, but there’s no preceding instruction to compute/provide {analysis_count} (unlike the commit step which computes ANALYSIS_STAGED). This risks creating PRs with an unresolved placeholder or incorrect counts. Consider instructing the agent to populate it from the staged analysis count (or remove the placeholder).

Same UTC issue here: the fallback for ARTICLE_DATE uses local time (date +%Y-%m-%d) before staging analysis/daily/${ARTICLE_DATE}/. To avoid staging the wrong date near midnight, use date -u +%Y-%m-%d consistently (matching earlier preflight steps).

The universal requirement says analysis artifacts "MUST always be committed alongside any other workflow output", but later in this same document the staging patterns explicitly prune analysis/weekly and analysis/data to stay under the safe-outputs 100-file limit. This creates a conflicting directive for workflow authors. Consider updating this requirement to explicitly describe the safe-outputs limit exception and the intended prioritization order (e.g., keep a minimal/high-impact analysis subset and prune lower-priority artifacts first when nearing the limit).

This preemptive safe-outputs guard removes all staged analysis (git reset ... analysis/) when >90 files are staged, which can directly contradict the workflow’s new “mandatory analysis improvement” requirement and can result in a PR with translations but no analysis changes. Instead of dropping analysis entirely, consider prioritizing and staging a minimal analysis subset (e.g., only the specific improved file(s) under the chosen ANALYSIS_TARGET), and/or reducing translation scope (fewer languages/articles) to keep at least one analysis improvement committed per run.

The analysis-improvement time guard uses a 45-minute threshold here, but the rest of the workflow’s time-guard guidance consistently uses 40 minutes (e.g., earlier elapsed-time guards and the final "Time management" note). Align these thresholds to avoid conflicting instructions that could cause the agent to start analysis too late and risk timeouts.

In the >90 staged-file pruning block, the script unstages all analysis/ and then re-stages only analysis/daily/${ARTICLE_DATE}/. If Step 3b improved analysis in a nearby date directory (or any analysis outside the exact ARTICLE_DATE folder), those improvements will be silently dropped from the commit when pruning triggers. Consider re-staging the same set of analysis directories that were added earlier (ARTICLE_DATE plus the DAYS_BACK loop), or derive the specific changed analysis paths from git diff --name-only before the reset and re-add those to preserve actual improvements while still staying under the limit.

The hard-guard error message says the staged count exceeds the limit “after dropping analysis/”, but at this point the script has already re-staged a minimal subset of analysis files. This wording is misleading for debugging (it may still be >100 due to translations, or due to the re-staged analysis). Consider rephrasing to reflect the actual state (e.g., “after pruning analysis to the minimal subset”) and optionally include a quick breakdown of staged counts by path (news/ vs analysis/).

This new analysis-check block correctly uses UTC (date -u), but the same file still has at least one earlier fallback that uses local time (date +%Y-%m-%d around the translation parity-check section). If the runner timezone ever differs, the workflow can target different dates in different steps. Prefer using date -u consistently for all ARTICLE_DATE fallbacks throughout the workflow to avoid cross-step mismatches.