🗳️ 본회의 투표 및 결의
본회의 투표 및 결의: 2026-04-13
유럽 의회의 최근 본회의 투표, 채택 텍스트, 정당 결속 분석 및 투표 이상 감지 게시일 2026-04-13.
⏱️ 빠른 읽기: 1분 · 전체 분석: 7분 · 완전한 인텔리전스: 23분
Executive Brief
BLUF
Run 39 is a T-2 pre-Tariff-activation motions-track positioning run. The motions track maintains continuity on the March 2026 motion cluster (housing, anti-corruption, Braun, etc.) while the trade-defence files transit to operational status on 15 April. The frontmatter exhibits the known recursive cataloguing artifact. Confidence: MEDIUM; Admiralty: B2.
Three Decisions
- Maintain motions-track continuity on non-trade files during T-N window. The trade-defence files dominate operational headlines, but motions on housing, anti-corruption, etc. require sustained analytical attention to avoid signal loss. Confidence: HIGH.
- Treat motions and trade-defence tracks as parallel analytical streams. They share the March 2026 plenary anchor but diverge in operational trajectory; tracking both prevents narrative collapse onto trade exclusively. Confidence: HIGH.
- Document the parallel-stream framework as the recess-cluster analytical architecture. Multiple parallel tracks (motions, committee-reports, propositions, breaking) maintained simultaneously is the canonical EP10 recess-period pattern. Confidence: HIGH.
60-Second Read
Motions-track T-2 runs preserve the analytical record on non-headline files. The discipline of maintaining parallel-stream tracking matters precisely because the trade-defence narrative would otherwise consume all analytical bandwidth.
Risk Snapshot
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Trade-defence narrative crowds out motions-track files | HIGH | MED |
| Parallel-stream framework abandoned during plenary-week load | MED | MED |
| Frontmatter recursion masks analytical content | LOW | LOW |
Source Quality
- Motions-cluster cataloguing: A2
- Parallel-stream framework: B2 (constructed)
Provenance
- Run:
motions-run39(2026-04-13, T-2) - Compliance: EP Open Data Portal feeds only. GDPR-compliant.
Analytical neutrality: parallel-stream framing labelled.
전체 분석 읽기 ↓
Significance
Significance Classification
Classification Context
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Data Status | EP API OUTAGE — classification based on precomputed stats + prior analysis cross-reference |
| Live Feed Data | None available (9 consecutive MCP timeouts) |
| Classification Basis | Prior run intelligence (Apr 10 motions, Apr 13 propositions) + precomputed 2026 stats |
| Confidence | 🟡 MEDIUM — no new feed data to validate |
Pending Motions Items (from Prior Analysis)
These items were identified in prior runs and remain active for post-Easter monitoring:
Tier 1: HIGH Significance (Score 7.0+)
| Rank | EP Reference | Title | Prior Score | Classification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TA-10-2026-0096 | EU Countermeasures to US Tariffs | 8.4 | 🔴 CRITICAL — April 15 deadline T-2 | Adopted Mar 26 — implementation pending |
| 2 | TA-10-2026-0092 | Banking Resolution (SRMR3) | 7.1 | 🟠 HIGH — trilogue launch imminent | Adopted Mar 26 — Council negotiation |
| 3 | TA-10-2026-0094 | Anti-Corruption Directive | 7.05 | 🟠 HIGH — first EU-wide measure | Adopted Mar 26 — transposition begins |
Tier 2: MEDIUM Significance (Score 5.0-6.9)
| Rank | EP Reference | Title | Prior Score | Classification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | TA-10-2026-0095 | CSAM Regulation Extension | 6.8 | 🟡 MEDIUM — temporary measure | Adopted Mar 26 |
| 5 | TA-10-2026-0058 | EU Talent Pool | 6.7 | 🟡 MEDIUM — labour mobility | Adopted earlier 2026 |
| 6 | TA-10-2026-0090 | Banking Union BRRD3 | 6.5 | 🟡 MEDIUM — linked to SRMR3 | Adopted Mar 26 |
| 7 | TA-10-2026-0091 | Banking Union DGSD2 | 6.5 | 🟡 MEDIUM — linked to SRMR3 | Adopted Mar 26 |
Significance Scoring Framework
%%{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 Motions Significance Matrix (Urgency vs Impact)
x-axis "Low Urgency" --> "High Urgency"
y-axis "Low Impact" --> "High Impact"
quadrant-1 "Critical Priority"
quadrant-2 "Strategic Watch"
quadrant-3 "Routine Monitor"
quadrant-4 "Time-Sensitive"
"US Tariff Countermeasures": [0.95, 0.88]
"Banking SRMR3": [0.65, 0.75]
"Anti-Corruption Directive": [0.50, 0.80]
"CSAM Extension": [0.70, 0.55]
"EU Talent Pool": [0.35, 0.60]
"Banking BRRD3": [0.60, 0.65]
2026 Motions Landscape Classification
Resolution Volume Trend
The projected 180 resolutions for 2026 (vs 135 in 2025, +33%) indicates:
- Higher parliamentary assertiveness: EP10 groups using motions as political positioning tools
- Geopolitical drivers: Trade, defence, and strategic autonomy generating more resolution activity
- Fragmentation effect: 8-group parliament (fragmentation index 6.59) requires more motions to build consensus
Roll-Call Vote Intelligence
567 projected roll-call votes (+35% vs 2025) suggests:
- Increased transparency demand: Groups forcing recorded votes on contentious items
- Coalition testing: More RCVs used to expose cross-party fault lines
- Electoral positioning: MEPs building voting records for 2029 election cycle (mid-term)
7-Dimension Classification (Framework Application)
| Dimension | Assessment | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Policy Impact | HIGH — trade countermeasures directly affect EU-US relations | 🟢 High |
| Coalition Significance | HIGH — three-pole dynamics testing on trade vs banking priorities | 🟡 Medium |
| Procedural Importance | MEDIUM — post-Easter restart creates scheduling pressure | 🟡 Medium |
| Public Salience | HIGH — tariff impacts on consumer prices widely reported | 🟢 High |
| Institutional Weight | HIGH — Commission implementation authority at stake | 🟡 Medium |
| Temporal Urgency | CRITICAL — April 15 tariff deadline imminent | 🟢 High |
| Historical Precedent | MEDIUM — EU trade defence motions relatively rare at this scale | 🟡 Medium |
Weighted Score: 7.8/10 — PUBLISH when live data becomes available
Risk Assessment
Risk Matrix
Risk Assessment Context
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Assessment Basis | Precomputed stats + prior analysis (no live EP API data) |
| Risk Framework | Likelihood x Impact (5x5 matrix) |
| Overall Risk Level | 🟠 HIGH (driven by trade deadline proximity) |
| Confidence | 🟡 MEDIUM |
Risk Matrix Visualization
%%{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 Motions Risk Matrix (Likelihood vs Impact)
x-axis "Low Likelihood" --> "High Likelihood"
y-axis "Low Impact" --> "High Impact"
quadrant-1 "Critical Risk"
quadrant-2 "Strategic Risk"
quadrant-3 "Monitor"
quadrant-4 "Operational Risk"
"US Tariff Escalation": [0.90, 0.95]
"Banking Trilogue Deadlock": [0.55, 0.75]
"Pipeline Congestion": [0.70, 0.60]
"Anti-Corruption Transposition Delay": [0.45, 0.65]
"EP API Data Gap": [0.85, 0.40]
"Coalition Fragmentation": [0.50, 0.70]
Detailed Risk Register
R1: US Tariff Escalation (CRITICAL)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Risk ID | R1-TRADE-2026-0413 |
| Likelihood | 5/5 — April 15 deadline in 2 days |
| Impact | 5/5 — Direct economic and political consequences |
| Score | 🔴 25/25 (CRITICAL) |
| Trend | ↑ Escalating |
| Source | TA-10-2026-0096 (adopted Mar 26) |
Analysis: The EU countermeasures resolution adopted March 26 authorized the Commission to implement retaliatory tariffs by April 15. With Parliament in Easter recess until April 14, there has been no parliamentary oversight of Commission preparations. The T-1 day return creates a collision between parliamentary scrutiny expectations and implementation deadlines.
Motions implication: Expect urgent oral questions, possible motion for resolution on implementation oversight, and INTA emergency debate within first post-Easter sitting.
R2: Banking Union Trilogue Stalemate (HIGH)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Risk ID | R2-BANK-2026-0413 |
| Likelihood | 3/5 — Council positions diverge on DGSD2 |
| Impact | 4/5 — Banking union completion delayed further |
| Score | 🟠 12/25 (HIGH) |
| Trend | → Stable |
| Source | TA-10-2026-0090/91/92 (adopted Mar 26) |
Analysis: Parliament adopted all three Banking Union texts (SRMR3, BRRD3, DGSD2) in the March 26 plenary, giving ECON a strong negotiating mandate. However, Council remains divided on deposit guarantee mutualisation. The trilogue launch in late April will test whether the grand coalition (EPP+S&D+Renew) mandate holds against national government resistance.
Motions implication: Resolution motions on banking union timeline, possible oral questions to Council presidency on negotiation calendar.
R3: Post-Easter Pipeline Congestion (ELEVATED)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Risk ID | R3-PIPE-2026-0413 |
| Likelihood | 4/5 — 13 COD procedures queued |
| Impact | 3/5 — Delayed committee assignments |
| Score | 🟡 12/25 (ELEVATED) |
| Trend | ↑ Increasing |
| Source | Precomputed stats: 935 procedures active in 2026 |
Analysis: 13 new COD procedures from Q1 2026 await rapporteur appointment and committee assignment post-Easter. Combined with the trade crisis agenda and banking trilogue prep, committee scheduling capacity is at risk. The 43.8 committee-to-plenary ratio (highest in EP history) reflects increasing workload pressure.
R4: Anti-Corruption Transposition Risk (MODERATE)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Risk ID | R4-CORR-2026-0413 |
| Likelihood | 3/5 — Member states historically slow |
| Impact | 3/5 — EU credibility at stake |
| Score | 🟡 9/25 (MODERATE) |
| Trend | → Stable |
| Source | TA-10-2026-0094 |
Analysis: The Anti-Corruption Directive has a 24-month transposition deadline. Early signals of constitutional challenges in some member states could trigger parliamentary motions demanding Commission enforcement action.
R5: EP API Data Continuity (OPERATIONAL)
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Risk ID | R5-DATA-2026-0413 |
| Likelihood | 5/5 — Currently occurring |
| Impact | 2/5 — Operational impact on monitoring |
| Score | 🟡 10/25 (ELEVATED) |
| Trend | ↑ 12+ consecutive degraded runs |
| Source | This run diagnostic |
Analysis: The EP Open Data API has been intermittently unavailable since April 11, coinciding with Easter recess infrastructure maintenance. 12+ consecutive workflow runs across all article types have experienced degraded or failed MCP connectivity. This creates a monitoring blind spot during a critical pre-restart period.
Aggregate Risk Dashboard
%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
pie title Risk Distribution by Category
"Trade Policy (CRITICAL)" : 25
"Financial Regulation (HIGH)" : 12
"Pipeline Management (ELEVATED)" : 12
"Data Continuity (ELEVATED)" : 10
"Rule of Law (MODERATE)" : 9
"Coalition Dynamics (MODERATE)" : 8
Risk Trend Summary
| Risk Category | Apr 10 Score | Apr 13 Score | Change | Driver |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade Escalation | 16 | 25 | ↑ +9 | Deadline now T-2 (was T-5) |
| Banking Trilogue | 12 | 12 | → 0 | No new information |
| Pipeline Congestion | 12 | 12 | → 0 | Easter recess unchanged |
| Anti-Corruption | 9 | 9 | → 0 | Stable |
| Data Continuity | N/A | 10 | NEW | EP API outage since Apr 11 |
완전한 인텔리전스 열기 ↓
독자 인텔리전스 가이드
How to read this analysis
This article uses confidence and source-quality notation. The guide below translates specialist shorthand into plain-English wording for general readers.
- Source confidence: Admiralty grades are shown in reader-friendly text on first use.
- Probability language: WEP bands are translated to phrases like “likely” or “almost certainly”.
- Acronyms: first uses are expanded with abbreviations for accessibility.
이 가이드를 사용하여 기사를 원시 산출물 모음이 아닌 정치 인텔리전스 제품으로 읽으십시오. 고가치 독자 관점이 먼저 나타납니다. 기술적 출처는 감사 부록에서 확인할 수 있습니다.
팁: 먼저 경영진 브리프를 훑어본 다음 아래 링크를 사용해 분석가, 기자, 옹호자, 정책 입안자 등 본인의 역할에 맞는 관점으로 이동하십시오.
Threat Landscape
Political Threat Landscape
Threat Assessment Context
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Assessment Date | 2026-04-13 (Easter recess Day 18/18) |
| Threat Level | 🟠 HIGH (2.8/5) — trade escalation + data blackout |
| Framework | Multi-framework analysis adapted for EU democracy |
| Confidence | 🟡 MEDIUM (precomputed stats + prior analysis only) |
Threat Landscape Overview
%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
flowchart TD
A["🌐 External Threats"] --> A1["US Trade Escalation<br/>Severity: CRITICAL"]
A --> A2["Geopolitical Instability<br/>Severity: HIGH"]
B["🏛️ Institutional Threats"] --> B1["Pipeline Obstruction<br/>Severity: ELEVATED"]
B --> B2["Trilogue Deadlock<br/>Severity: HIGH"]
B --> B3["Data Infrastructure Gap<br/>Severity: MODERATE"]
C["🗳️ Coalition Threats"] --> C1["Three-Pole Fragmentation<br/>Severity: MODERATE"]
C --> C2["Grand Coalition Erosion<br/>Severity: LOW-MODERATE"]
style A1 fill:#cc0000,color:#fff
style A2 fill:#ff6600,color:#fff
style B1 fill:#ff9900,color:#fff
style B2 fill:#ff6600,color:#fff
style B3 fill:#ffcc00,color:#000
style C1 fill:#ffcc00,color:#000
style C2 fill:#99cc00,color:#000
Threat Actor Profiling
External Actors
United States Administration
- Threat vector: Tariff escalation beyond April 15 deadline
- Capability: HIGH — unilateral trade policy authority
- Intent: Uncertain — negotiation tactic vs structural protectionism
- Impact on EP motions: Emergency resolutions, oral questions to Commission, possible motion of censure if Commission response deemed inadequate
- Confidence: 🟡 MEDIUM
Institutional Actors
Council of the EU
- Threat vector: Blocking trilogue on Banking Union DGSD2
- Capability: MEDIUM — can delay but not permanently block
- Intent: Divergent national positions on deposit guarantee mutualisation
- Impact on EP motions: EP resolutions pressuring Council, possible use of Article 294 urgency procedure
- Confidence: 🟡 MEDIUM
European Commission
- Threat vector: Implementation delays on tariff countermeasures
- Capability: HIGH — sole implementation authority
- Intent: Likely to implement but timing uncertain
- Impact on EP motions: Oversight motions, oral questions, potential urgency debate
- Confidence: 🟡 MEDIUM
Internal EP Actors
ECR Group
- Threat vector: Breaking grand coalition consensus on trade
- Role: Strengthened to 11% (79 seats), increasingly used by EPP as alternative coalition partner
- Pattern: Renew-ECR competitiveness alliance (0.95 cohesion identified Apr 10) may pull EPP rightward on trade response
- Impact on motions: Competing resolution texts, amendment storms on Commission delegated acts
- Confidence: 🟡 MEDIUM
PfE Group (Patriots for Europe)
- Threat vector: Populist counter-narrative on tariff impacts
- Role: 11.7% (84 seats) — nationalist economics framing
- Pattern: Likely to table alternative motions emphasising national sovereignty over EU-level response
- Impact on motions: Dilution of parliament position through fragmented voting
- Confidence: 🟡 MEDIUM
Kill Chain Analysis: Trade Escalation Scenario
%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
flowchart LR
K1["Stage 1<br/>Reconnaissance<br/>✅ Complete"] --> K2["Stage 2<br/>Weaponisation<br/>✅ Complete"]
K2 --> K3["Stage 3<br/>Delivery<br/>🟠 In Progress"]
K3 --> K4["Stage 4<br/>Exploitation<br/>⬜ Pending"]
K4 --> K5["Stage 5<br/>Installation<br/>⬜ Pending"]
K1 -.- K1D["US identifies EU<br/>trade vulnerabilities"]
K2 -.- K2D["Tariff measures<br/>announced"]
K3 -.- K3D["April 15 deadline<br/>T-2 days"]
K4 -.- K4D["Economic impact<br/>materialises"]
K5 -.- K5D["Structural trade<br/>realignment"]
style K1 fill:#cc0000,color:#fff
style K2 fill:#cc0000,color:#fff
style K3 fill:#ff6600,color:#fff
style K4 fill:#999,color:#fff
style K5 fill:#999,color:#fff
Current position: Stage 3 (Delivery). The April 15 deadline is the delivery mechanism. EP's countermeasures resolution (TA-10-2026-0096) is the defensive response. Parliament returns April 14 — one day before the deadline — creating a scrutiny gap.
Threat Trend Comparison
| Threat | Apr 10 Level | Apr 13 Level | Change | Driver |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US Trade Escalation | HIGH (3/5) | CRITICAL (4/5) | ↑ | Deadline T-2 |
| Trilogue Deadlock | HIGH (3/5) | HIGH (3/5) | → | No change during recess |
| Pipeline Obstruction | MODERATE (2/5) | ELEVATED (3/5) | ↑ | 18-day recess backlog |
| Coalition Fragmentation | MODERATE (2/5) | MODERATE (2/5) | → | Dormant during recess |
| Data Infrastructure | N/A | MODERATE (2/5) | NEW | EP API outage since Apr 11 |
Overall Threat Assessment
Aggregate threat level: 🟠 HIGH (2.8/5)
The threat landscape for EU Parliament motions is elevated primarily due to the convergence of the US tariff deadline (April 15) with the end of Easter recess (April 14). This creates a one-day scrutiny window that threatens parliamentary oversight effectiveness. The combination of external trade pressure, internal coalition dynamics (three-pole system), and operational challenges (13 pending COD procedures + EP API data gaps) creates a higher-than-normal risk environment for the post-Easter motions agenda.
Key uncertainty: Whether the US administration uses the April 15 deadline as a negotiation lever or implements full tariff schedules. This single variable has the highest impact on EP motions activity in the coming week.
Document Analysis
Document Analysis Index
Analysis-only run (EP API outage). No new documents fetched for this run.
Referenced Documents (from Prior Analysis)
These documents were identified in prior runs (April 10 motions, April 13 propositions) and remain relevant for motions monitoring:
| EP Reference | Title | Adopted | Prior Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| TA-10-2026-0096 | EU Countermeasures to US Tariffs | 2026-03-26 | 8.4/10 (CRITICAL) |
| TA-10-2026-0094 | Anti-Corruption Directive | 2026-03-26 | 7.05/10 (HIGH) |
| TA-10-2026-0092 | Banking Resolution SRMR3 | 2026-03-26 | 7.1/10 (HIGH) |
| TA-10-2026-0091 | Banking Union DGSD2 | 2026-03-26 | 6.5/10 (MEDIUM) |
| TA-10-2026-0090 | Banking Union BRRD3 | 2026-03-26 | 6.5/10 (MEDIUM) |
| TA-10-2026-0095 | CSAM Regulation Extension | 2026-03-26 | 6.8/10 (MEDIUM) |
| TA-10-2026-0093 | Multiannual Plan North Sea Demersal | 2026-03-26 | 4.2/10 (LOW) |
Note: Full per-document analysis was performed in prior runs. This run could not fetch new documents due to EP API outage (HTTP 000, all MCP feeds timeout). See api-outage-diagnostic.md for details.
Supplementary Intelligence
Api Outage Diagnostic
📋 Diagnostic Summary
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Run ID | 39 |
| Timestamp | 2026-04-13T18:10:00Z |
| Article Type | motions |
| EP API Status | 🔴 UNREACHABLE (HTTP 000 — connection timeout) |
| MCP Server | v1.2.5 — unhealthy, all 13 feeds UNKNOWN |
| Node.js | v20.20.2 (runner) — incompatible with EP MCP binary (requires v25) |
| Precomputed Stats | ✅ Available (61 KB, 23 years 2004-2026) |
🔍 Health Gate Attempts (3/3 Failed)
| Attempt | Tool | Result | Timestamp |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | get_plenary_sessions(limit: 1) | TIMEOUT (90s) | 17:58:04Z |
| 2 | get_plenary_sessions(limit: 1, year: 2026) | TIMEOUT (90s) | 18:00:15Z |
| 3 | get_plenary_sessions(dateFrom, dateTo, limit: 1) | TIMEOUT (90s) | 18:02:25Z |
📡 Feed Endpoint Failures (6/6 Timed Out)
| Feed | Status | Timestamp |
|---|---|---|
get_adopted_texts_feed (one-week) | TIMEOUT | 18:04:05Z |
get_parliamentary_questions_feed (one-week) | TIMEOUT | 18:05:45Z |
get_procedures_feed (one-week) | TIMEOUT | 18:05:45Z |
get_voting_records (Mar 20 to Apr 13) | TIMEOUT | 18:05:45Z |
detect_voting_anomalies | UPSTREAM_TIMEOUT | 18:07:31Z |
generate_political_landscape | TIMEOUT | 18:07:31Z |
🌐 Network Diagnostic
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| DNS Resolution | ✅ data.europarl.europa.eu resolves to 34.251.207.80 |
| Direct HTTPS (curl, 90s timeout) | ❌ HTTP 000 — connection timeout |
| EP API Direct v2 GET | ❌ No response within 90s |
| github.com | ✅ Reachable |
🔬 Root Cause Analysis
Primary cause: The European Parliament API (data.europarl.europa.eu) is experiencing a sustained outage. DNS resolves correctly to 34.251.207.80, but HTTPS connections time out after 90 seconds. This is NOT an AWF firewall issue — DNS resolution succeeds, and the timeout pattern indicates the EP API server is not responding to TCP connections.
Contributing factor: The runner Node.js v20.20.2 is incompatible with the EP MCP server binary (which requires Node.js v25). The MCP server crashes on startup with undici markAsUncloneable error. Even if the EP API were responding, the MCP server would not function in stdio mode on this runner.
Context: Easter recess Day 18 of 18 (final day). Parliament resumes April 14. This is the 12th+ consecutive degraded/failed run across all news workflows since April 11. Prior successful runs (committee-reports run 47 on April 13) used a direct curl workaround when the EP API was briefly responsive.
✅ What Worked
| Component | Status |
|---|---|
get_all_generated_stats | ✅ 61 KB precomputed stats (2004-2026) |
get_server_health | ✅ Returns diagnostic (unhealthy, 0/13 feeds) |
analyze_coalition_dynamics | Partial — structure returned but all data UNAVAILABLE |
| Prior analysis cross-reference | ✅ Propositions run 41, Motions Apr 10 synthesis available |
📊 Precomputed Stats Summary (2026 Q1)
From get_all_generated_stats:
- Plenary sessions: 54 (calendar year, 10 sittings completed Jan-Feb)
- Legislative acts adopted: 114 (projected, +46.2% vs 2025)
- Roll-call votes: 567 (projected)
- Resolutions: 180 (projected)
- Adopted texts: 104 (actual Q1)
- Parliamentary questions: 6,147 (projected, +24.4% vs 2025)
- Fragmentation index: 6.59 (8 groups + NI)
- Right bloc: 52.3% | Left bloc: 32.6% | Centre: 10.6%
🔮 Resolution Hints
- EP API outage: Monitor data.europarl.europa.eu — likely maintenance or infrastructure issue coinciding with Easter recess end
- Node.js v20: Workflow runner needs Node.js v25 for EP MCP server stdio mode. Gateway mode works when EP API is responsive.
- Next retry: Suggest running again April 14 when Parliament resumes and EP API infrastructure may be restored
Synthesis Summary
📋 Synthesis Context
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Synthesis ID | SYN-2026-04-13-MOTIONS-RUN39 |
| Analysis Date | 2026-04-13 |
| Data Sources | Precomputed stats (2004-2026), prior run cross-references |
| Period | Easter Recess Day 18/18 (final day) — Parliament resumes April 14 |
| Overall Confidence | 🟡 MEDIUM (no live feed data — EP API outage) |
| Article Type | motions |
| Outcome | Analysis-only PR (no article generated due to EP API outage) |
🎯 Intelligence Dashboard
%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
flowchart LR
A["📊 Precomputed Stats<br/>61 KB available"] --> D
B["🔴 EP API<br/>OUTAGE"] --> D
C["📎 Prior Analysis<br/>Apr 10 + Apr 13"] --> D
D{"Editorial<br/>Decision"} --> E["📁 Analysis-Only<br/>No Article"]
F["📅 Context<br/>Easter Day 18/18"] --> D
style D fill:#ff6600,color:#fff
style E fill:#cc0000,color:#fff
style B fill:#cc0000,color:#fff
Decision: ANALYSIS-ONLY PR. EP API completely unreachable (HTTP 000, 9 consecutive MCP timeouts). No live feed data available for motions article. Precomputed stats provide background intelligence only — insufficient for feed-first article per content quality rules.
🔗 Cross-Session Intelligence Continuity
Prior Motions Analysis (2026-04-10, Run SYN-2026-04-10-001)
The April 10 motions synthesis identified:
- Top significance: US Tariff Countermeasures (TA-10-2026-0096) at 8.4/10
- Geopolitical assertiveness pivot: Trade defence + defence procurement + development strategy = coherent package
- Three-pole system: Renew-ECR competitiveness alliance (0.95 cohesion) as structural EP10 feature
- Q1 record output: 100 adopted texts, +46.2% above 2025 pace
- Anti-corruption milestone: TA-10-2026-0094 with 24-month transposition window
Prior Propositions Analysis (2026-04-13, Run 41)
Today's propositions synthesis confirmed:
- US tariff deadline T-2: April 15 implementation deadline creates urgency for post-Easter restart
- Banking Union trilogue: SRMR3/BRRD3/DGSD2 negotiations with Council starting late April
- Pipeline congestion: 13 new COD procedures awaiting committee assignment
- Risk landscape: Trade policy at CRITICAL (16/25), Financial Regulation at HIGH (12/25)
📊 Motions-Specific Intelligence from Precomputed Stats
2026 Q1 Motions Activity (Projected Full-Year)
| Metric | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 (proj.) | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolutions | 108 | 135 | 180 | ↑ (+33%) |
| Roll-call votes | 375 | 420 | 567 | ↑ (+35%) |
| Legislative acts | 72 | 78 | 114 | ↑ (+46%) |
| Adopted texts | 459 | 347 | 104 (Q1 actual) | → |
| Questions | 3,950 | 4,941 | 6,147 | ↑ (+24%) |
Political Landscape (EP10, 720 MEPs)
%%{init: {"theme":"dark","themeVariables":{"primaryColor":"#1565C0","primaryTextColor":"#ffffff","primaryBorderColor":"#0A3F7F","lineColor":"#90CAF9","secondaryColor":"#2E7D32","secondaryTextColor":"#ffffff","secondaryBorderColor":"#0F3F00","tertiaryColor":"#FF9800","tertiaryTextColor":"#000000","tertiaryBorderColor":"#7F4F00","mainBkg":"#1565C0","secondBkg":"#2E7D32","tertiaryBkg":"#FF9800","noteBkgColor":"#FFC107","noteTextColor":"#000000","noteBorderColor":"#7F6000","errorBkgColor":"#D32F2F","errorTextColor":"#ffffff","fontFamily":"Inter, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif","pie1":"#1565C0","pie2":"#2E7D32","pie3":"#FF9800","pie4":"#D32F2F","pie5":"#FFC107","pie6":"#7B1FA2","pie7":"#9E9E9E","pie8":"#0288D1","pie9":"#388E3C","pie10":"#F57C00","pie11":"#C62828","pie12":"#FBC02D","pieTitleTextSize":"18px","pieSectionTextSize":"14px","pieLegendTextSize":"13px","pieStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","pieOuterStrokeColor":"#1e1e1e","git0":"#1565C0","git1":"#2E7D32","git2":"#FF9800","git3":"#D32F2F","gitBranchLabel0":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel1":"#ffffff","gitBranchLabel2":"#000000","gitBranchLabel3":"#ffffff","cScale0":"#1565C0","cScale1":"#2E7D32","cScale2":"#FF9800","cScale3":"#D32F2F","cScale4":"#FFC107","cScale5":"#7B1FA2","cScale6":"#9E9E9E","cScale7":"#0288D1","xyChart":{"backgroundColor":"#1e1e1e","plotColorPalette":"#1565C0,#2E7D32,#FF9800,#D32F2F,#FFC107,#7B1FA2,#9E9E9E"}}}}%%
pie title EP10 Political Group Seat Share (2026)
"EPP" : 25.7
"S&D" : 18.8
"PfE" : 11.7
"ECR" : 11.0
"RE" : 10.6
"Greens/EFA" : 7.4
"GUE/NGL" : 6.4
"NI" : 4.7
"ESN" : 3.9
Key dynamics for motions:
- Right bloc (EPP+PfE+ECR+ESN) holds 52.3% — sufficient for motions requiring simple majority
- Grand Coalition (EPP+S&D) at 44.5% — needs Renew (10.6%) for absolute majority
- Minimum winning coalition requires 3 groups (EPP+S&D+Renew = 55.1%)
- Fragmentation index 6.59 — highest in EP history, complicating resolution consensus
Derived Intelligence Relevant to Motions
| Indicator | Value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Resolution-to-legislation ratio | 1.58 | Each legislative act generates 1.6 associated resolutions |
| Roll-call vote yield | 20.1% | 1 in 5 roll-call votes produces a legislative act |
| Oversight per session | 113.8 questions | High oversight intensity — motions reflect this |
| Debate intensity | 236.3 speeches/session | Active plenary floor engagement |
| MEP stability index | 0.949 | Low turnover — experienced MEPs driving motions |
🔮 Post-Easter Motions Outlook
Scenario 1: Orderly Restart (Probability: Likely)
Parliament resumes April 14 with structured agenda. The March 26 adopted texts (TA-10-2026-0090 through 0096) provide a clear baseline for follow-up motions. Expected activity:
- Resolution implementation monitoring motions (trade countermeasures, anti-corruption)
- Committee-stage motions on 13 pending COD procedures
- Oral questions on Easter-period developments (US tariff situation)
Scenario 2: Crisis-Driven Session (Probability: Possible)
If US tariff deadline (April 15) triggers escalation, emergency motions and joint resolutions likely. INTA emergency session confirmed by prior committee-reports analysis. Could generate 5-10 urgent motions in first post-Easter week.
Scenario 3: Delayed Restart (Probability: Unlikely)
Extended infrastructure or political delays push substantive motions to week of April 20. Low probability given the tariff deadline urgency.
📝 Recommendations for Next Motions Run
- Priority data fetch:
get_adopted_texts_feed(one-week)— capture any new adopted texts from the restart - Voting records:
get_voting_records(topic: "tariff")— monitor trade-related votes - Coalition tracking:
analyze_coalition_dynamicswith March 26 voting data for baseline - Question monitoring:
get_parliamentary_questions_feedfor post-recess interpellations - Cross-reference: Link to this analysis for continuity (SYN-2026-04-13-MOTIONS-RUN39)
Provenance & Audit
- Article type:
motions- Run date: 2026-04-13
- Run id:
39- Gate result:
PENDING- Analysis tree: analysis/daily/2026-04-13/motions-run39
- Manifest: manifest.json
트레이드크래프트 참고문헌
이 기사는 Hack23 AB 인텔리전스 트레이드크래프트 라이브러리에 따라 제작되었습니다. 이번 실행에 적용된 모든 방법론과 아티팩트 템플릿이 아래에 연결되어 있습니다.
아티팩트 템플릿
- 분석 템플릿 라이브러리 색인 분석 템플릿 라이브러리 색인 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 행위자 매핑 행위자 매핑 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 행위자 위협 프로필 행위자 위협 프로필 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 분석 색인(실행 산출물 내비게이터) 분석 색인(실행 산출물 내비게이터) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 연정 역학 연정 역학 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 연정 수학 연정 수학 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Commission Wp Alignment Commission Wp Alignment — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 비교 국제 분석 비교 국제 분석 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 결과 트리 결과 트리 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 교차 참조 지도 교차 참조 지도 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 실행 간 차분(베이지안 델타) 실행 간 차분(베이지안 델타) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 세션 간 정보 세션 간 정보 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Data Availability Assessment Data Availability Assessment — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 데이터 다운로드 매니페스트 데이터 다운로드 매니페스트 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 심층 정치 분석(롱폼) 심층 정치 분석(롱폼) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 악마의 대변인 분석 악마의 대변인 분석 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 경제 컨텍스트(세계은행·IMF) 경제 컨텍스트(세계은행·IMF) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 경영진 브리프 경영진 브리프 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 세력 분석(레빈 역장) 세력 분석(레빈 역장) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 선행 지표 선행 지표 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Forward Projection Forward Projection — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 역사적 기준선 역사적 기준선 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 역사적 유사 사례 역사적 유사 사례 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Imf Vintage Audit Imf Vintage Audit — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 영향 매트릭스(이벤트×이해관계자) 영향 매트릭스(이벤트×이해관계자) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 구현 실현 가능성 구현 실현 가능성 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정보 평가 정보 평가 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 입법 교란 입법 교란 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Legislative Pipeline Forecast Legislative Pipeline Forecast — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 입법 속도 리스크 입법 속도 리스크 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Mandate Fulfilment Scorecard Mandate Fulfilment Scorecard — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- MCP 신뢰성 감사 MCP 신뢰성 감사 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 미디어 프레이밍 분석 미디어 프레이밍 분석 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 방법론 성찰(회고) 방법론 성찰(회고) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Parliamentary Calendar Projection Parliamentary Calendar Projection — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 파일별 정치 정보 파일별 정치 정보 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- PESTLE 분석(6차원 스캔) PESTLE 분석(6차원 스캔) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정치 자본 리스크 정치 자본 리스크 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정치 이벤트 분류 정치 이벤트 분류 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정치 위협 환경 정치 위협 환경 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Presidency Trio Context Presidency Trio Context — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정량 SWOT(수치+TOWS) 정량 SWOT(수치+TOWS) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 참조 분석 품질 참조 분석 품질 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정치 리스크 평가 정치 리스크 평가 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 리스크 매트릭스(5×5 가능성×영향) 리스크 매트릭스(5×5 가능성×영향) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 시나리오 예측(확률 가중) 시나리오 예측(확률 가중) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Seat Projection Seat Projection — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 세션 기준선(본회의 일정) 세션 기준선(본회의 일정) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 중요도 분류(5차원 루브릭) 중요도 분류(5차원 루브릭) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정치적 중요도 점수화 정치적 중요도 점수화 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 이해관계자 영향 평가 이해관계자 영향 평가 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 이해관계자 지도(권력×정렬) 이해관계자 지도(권력×정렬) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정치 SWOT 분석 정치 SWOT 분석 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 종합 요약 종합 요약 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- Term Arc Term Arc — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 정치 위협 환경 분석 정치 위협 환경 분석 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 위협 모델(민주주의 및 제도) 위협 모델(민주주의 및 제도) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 유권자 세분화 유권자 세분화 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 투표 패턴 투표 패턴 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 와일드카드 및 블랙스완 와일드카드 및 블랙스완 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
- 워크플로 감사(에이전트 실행 자기 평가) 워크플로 감사(에이전트 실행 자기 평가) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 템플릿 보기
방법론
- 방법론 라이브러리 색인 EU Parliament Monitor가 사용하는 모든 분석 트레이드크래프트 가이드의 색인 — 전체 방법론 라이브러리의 진입점. 방법론 보기
- AI 기반 분석 가이드 모든 에이전트 워크플로가 따르는 표준 10단계 AI 기반 분석 프로토콜 — 규칙 1–22 및 단계 10.5 방법론 성찰을 긍정적 어조와 색상 코드 Mermaid 다이어그램으로 제공. 방법론 보기
- Analytical Supplementary Methodology Analytical Supplementary Methodology — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 방법론. 방법론 보기
- 분석 산출물 카탈로그 모든 기사 생성 워크플로가 생성하는 39개 분석 산출물의 마스터 카탈로그 — 각 산출물을 방법론·템플릿·깊이 하한·Mermaid 다이어그램 유형에 매핑. 방법론 보기
- Confidence Calibration Confidence Calibration — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 방법론. 방법론 보기
- Electoral Cycle Methodology Electoral Cycle Methodology — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 방법론. 방법론 보기
- 선거 도메인 방법론 EU 전역 선거 분석 방법론 — 예측, 유럽의회 361석 임계값 및 회원국 차원의 연정 수학, 유권자 세분화 프레임워크. 방법론 보기
- Forward Projection Methodology Forward Projection Methodology — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 방법론. 방법론 보기
- IMF 지표 → 기사 유형 매핑 IMF 지표(WEO, Fiscal Monitor, IFS, BOP, ER, PCPS)를 EU Parliament Monitor 기사 유형에 매핑하는 표준 참조 — 경제·통화·재정·무역·외국인직접투자 맥락의 주요 출처. 방법론 보기
- OSINT 트레이드크래프트 표준 EP 정치 정보를 위한 OSINT/INTOP 전문 기법 표준 — 출처 평가, 귀속, 검증, 분석 신뢰도 등급, GDPR 준수 수집. 방법론 보기
- 산출물별 방법론 산출물별 방법론 노트 — 산출물 유형마다 34개 섹션, 구성 규칙·품질 신호·스테이지 C에서 강제되는 줄 수 하한 포함. 방법론 보기
- 문서별 분석 방법론 원자적 증거 계층 방법론: 개별 EP 문서(보고서, 동의안, 표결, 위원회 회의록)를 추출·주석·평가·맥락화하기 위한 문서 수준 지침. 방법론 보기
- 정치 이벤트 분류 가이드 유럽의회를 위한 정치 분류 체계 — 모든 분석 산출물에 적용되는 행위자, 입장, 위험 표면, 정보보안 분류. 방법론 보기
- 정치 리스크 방법론 Hack23 ISMS를 차용한 정치 위험의 정량적 5×5 가능성×영향 점수화 — 유럽의회의 연정·정책·예산·제도·지정학 위험에 적용. 방법론 보기
- 정치 스타일 가이드 편집 및 정치 스타일 가이드 — The Economist 영감의 어조·균형·귀속 규칙·Mermaid 다이어그램 관례와 14개 언어 전반의 다국어 고려사항. 방법론 보기
- 정치 SWOT 프레임워크 EU의 정치 행위자·연정·정책 입장에 맞춘 SWOT 프레임워크 — 정량 가중치, TOWS 전략 생성, 사분면 항목당 80단어 이상 깊이 하한 포함. 방법론 보기
- 정치 위협 프레임워크 유럽의회를 위한 6차원 민주적 위협 프레임워크 — 제도·절차·정보·연정·외부 개입·지정학적 위협을 STRIDE 방식으로 열거. 방법론 보기
- Seo Headers Policy Seo Headers Policy — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 방법론. 방법론 보기
- Source Triangulation Source Triangulation — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 방법론. 방법론 보기
- 전략적 확장 방법론 핵심 방법론의 전략적 확장 — 시나리오 기획, 악마의 변호인 분석, 와일드카드와 블랙스완, 장기 예측, 런 간 시너지스. 방법론 보기
- 구조 메타데이터 방법론 모든 EP 문서 유형의 구조적 메타데이터 추출·출처 추적·상호 연결 방법론 — 재현 가능한 분석과 GDPR 제30조 준수를 가능하게 함. 방법론 보기
- 종합 방법론 종합 및 점수 매김 방법론 — 중요도 채점·신뢰도 등급·상호참조 무결성 점검을 통해 여러 산출물을 일관된 정보 제품으로 결합. 방법론 보기
- Voter Segmentation Methodology Voter Segmentation Methodology — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 방법론. 방법론 보기
- 세계은행 지표 → 기사 유형 매핑 세계은행 비경제 공개 데이터 지표를 EU Parliament Monitor 기사 유형에 매핑 — 보건, 교육, 사회, 환경, 인구, 거버넌스, 혁신 포함. 방법론 보기
분석 색인
아래의 모든 아티팩트는 애그리게이터에 의해 읽혀 이 기사에 기여했습니다. 원시 manifest.json에는 게이트 결과 이력을 포함한 전체 기계 판독 가능 목록이 포함되어 있습니다.
- 경영진 브리프 경영진 브리프 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 보기
- 중요도 분류(5차원 루브릭) 중요도 분류(5차원 루브릭) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 보기
- 리스크 매트릭스(5×5 가능성×영향) 리스크 매트릭스(5×5 가능성×영향) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 보기
- 정치 위협 환경 분석 정치 위협 환경 분석 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 보기
- 분석 색인(실행 산출물 내비게이터) 분석 색인(실행 산출물 내비게이터) — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 보기
- MCP 신뢰성 감사 MCP 신뢰성 감사 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 보기
- 종합 요약 종합 요약 — EU Parliament Monitor 분석 라이브러리의 템플릿. 아티팩트 보기
