Under active development · AI tools for political and policy analysis.

Development status →

Section pages

SOLUTIONS

Geopolitical-risk work. A continuing record.

Our first-buyer hypothesis is a research director or partner at a boutique geopolitical-risk consultancy, with analysts and editors doing the daily work. Public-affairs teams, policy institutes and mission teams are adjacent intended users. These are proposed uses, not existing customers.

Recurring analytical work / intended users

Keep what a capable newcomer
might otherwise miss.

Has this rule actually taken effect? →

Who needs this? A consultancy analyst briefing a steering group.

What carries forward? Source versions, authority, proposal modality, optionality and the reviewer’s correction.

Inspect the distinction and example

Typical failure: A January proposal or July option becomes a claimed obligation.

S01 proposes January; S02 requests transition; S03 considers July. Adoption and optional pilot funding stay unresolved. Apply the Legislative stage check and review a qualified brief.

Which name is appropriate here? →

Who needs this? A conflict researcher or humanitarian policy editor.

What carries forward? Entity/alias evidence, attributed designation, jurisdiction, audience style and analysis date.

Inspect the distinction and example

Typical failure: An unverified alias becomes an entity match or a jurisdiction-specific designation becomes global.

The fictional Group Q exercise flags alias, global-scope and stale-date errors. Fictional B is not checked, rather than “not designated”. Published and captured notices remain separate.

Can another analyst continue this brief? →

Who needs this? A research director facing a staff change or a second assignment.

What carries forward? Pinned sources, useful correction, reviewed revision, open questions and source handling limits.

Inspect the distinction and example

Typical failure: A polished answer travels without the decisions and qualifications behind it.

Save and reopen a local context revision, fork it and preview a JSON handover. The next task retains the correction but requires source, rights and applicability review.

Are three reports three independent sources? →

Who needs this? An information-environment analyst updating a contested assessment.

What carries forward? Origin known/unknown, quoted versus independently reported, corrections, translation, audience, frame and alternatives.

Inspect the distinction and example

Typical failure: Repeated reporting becomes corroboration; a shared phrase becomes coordination.

Preserve the original statement and each publication’s actual contribution. Save a source trail and scoped checklist; leave unsupported motive and coordination unresolved.

Who accepted this commitment? →

Who needs this? A policy desk preparing meeting talking points and a negotiation handover.

What carries forward? Proposer, accepting party, authority, conditions, deadline, duration and implementation evidence.

Inspect the distinction and example

Typical failure: A participant’s statement becomes mutual agreement, or an expired arrangement stays active.

Inspect a candidate commitment, not an adjudicated obligation. Ask for addressee acceptance and mandate evidence; retain tentative interpretation and consent-aware review.

Inspect the five authored work products from one recurring brief

One dossier / many useful outputs

Use the same dossier
for five different tasks.

Analysts, editors and directors use the same record for different work. These manually authored examples show what each deliverable must carry.

Inspect five authored deliverables

Fictional / authored output illustration / O02

Working notes

Audience: Analyst and editor
Purpose: Maintain a shared source ledger
As of: Day 15 · 15 October 2026 · fictional
Sources: S01 §1 · S02 §2 · S03 §1 · S04 §1–3

Day 1: January proposed [S01]. Day 8: industry requests transition [S02]. Day 15: July considered [S03]. Keep proposal, adoption and effective dates separate.

Unresolved / next review

Who will publish an adoption instrument, and when?

No rule adopted. Optional pilot funding undecided.

Illustrative revised text, not a PRAXIS-generated or approved output. The graph preserves the earlier Day 8 versions that need rechecking.

Beyond the example assignment

Different teams. Specific analytical work.

Geopolitical-risk consultancy

Maintain dossiers, compare documented positions, prepare client advice and revisit the source record after a change.

Public affairs and policy institutes

Examine consultation responses, policy options and meeting material with an explicit audience and review method.

Mission teams

Prepare briefings and handovers that preserve mandates, time, competing accounts and unresolved commitments.

Workflow fit, analytical quality and team controls require a scoped evaluation. Current capabilities.

Knowledge at work

The same structure. Different stakes.

Follow a source into an assessment. Add a later record and see what needs to change. These fictional cases show the reasoning a team needs to preserve.

Information integrity · think tanks · public institutions

Repeated headlines. How many independent sources?

Repeated reporting can inflate confidence. A team needs to preserve where a claim began, how its framing changed, and what still needs checking.

Fictional case · interactive

Recurring task: update a narrative assessment as sources change. The analyst checks passages; the reviewer challenges claims; a team lead agrees the evaluation before relying on the workflow.

An information-integrity analyst checks independent sourcing and corrections before the next narrative assessment; a reviewer challenges attribution and claims of coordination.

Move the evidence forward

The assessment only uses records available in the selected view.

2 source records

Selected source · N1

“A driver reports that the Northbridge crossing is closed. The authority has not commented.”

Origin of the closure claim; one unnamed witness.

Circulation does not establish coordination, intent, or an effect on an audience.

Initial · Narrative assessment

What can we say?

One unverified closure account, repeated in a bulletin. The record does not establish whether all traffic is affected.

Human review

Preserve the original wording, check for corrections, and ask for an independent, dated observation.

Hand-authored illustration. No model is running.

The pilot test

Can a second analyst distinguish repetition, corroboration, and correction?

Explore the application

Statecraft · Policy · Regulation · Institutions

Statecraft & policy

Policy decisions depend on who has authority, what the evidence supports, and when a choice must be made. Explore our proposed workflows for briefings, regulation, and institutional analysis.

See proposed work

HR · Legal · Commercial · Governance

Human friction

Grievances, contracts, board decisions, and commercial disputes leave a complex record. Organize claims, responsibilities, and timelines for careful professional review.

See proposed work

Diplomatic · Multilateral · Humanitarian · Peace process

War & armed conflict

Diplomats, mediators, and humanitarian teams need to reconcile conflicting accounts without losing uncertainty. Explore proposed workflows for events, commitments, and human security.

See proposed work

CROSSWALK

Common questions, different responsibilities.

Analytical concept	Statecraft & policy	Human friction	Armed conflict
Actor	Ministry, opposition bloc, donor, regulator, guarantor, affected public	Employee, manager, HR officer, counsel, director	State, faction, mediator, guarantor, civilian population
Claim	"The reform is fiscally necessary but politically mistimed."	"The manager retaliated after the complaint."	"The ceasefire was violated on 3 February."
Interest	Fiscal stability. Public legitimacy. Coalition survival. Service continuity.	Job security. Dignity at work. Continued employment.	Territorial integrity. Autonomy. Recognition.
Commitment	Cabinet decision, donor condition, coalition pledge, treaty clause	Signed settlement, mediated agreement, promotion plan	Signed ceasefire, withdrawal commitment, mandate text
Leverage	Budget control, legal authority, public mobilization, agenda-setting power	Institutional role, timing, access to legal support	Territory, recognition, economic flows, alliance capacity

Not sure which domain is yours?

Start with a question you know well. Review the current PRAXIS capabilities, then consider which sources, specialist knowledge, and review steps your work requires.

See the PRAXIS workspace Why conflict

From research to useful work

High stakes. Concrete questions.

Public records show the kinds of questions these teams face. These examples describe proposed applications under development. They are not customer case studies; the workflows and their analytical quality still need evaluation.

01 / Security research · public institutions · information integrity teams

Narrative analysis & information resilience

Which claims are spreading, what supports them, and where is attribution uncertain?

An information-integrity team needs to trace a contested claim across publications, distinguish evidence from repetition, and record how its assessment changes. The source report below provides public examples of this workload. Source: EEAS · Fourth FIMI Threat Report, 2026

Inside the capsule and workflow

Context to preserve: Preserve statements, channels, source dates, attribution evidence, competing explanations, and corrections. Keep an allegation separate from a verified observation.
Proposed review process: Assemble approved source material, identify repeated accounts, and examine alternative explanations. An analyst reviews the citations and decides which conclusions the evidence supports.
Intended output: A reviewable information-environment brief, with uncertainty and source lineage.

Explore this application →

02 / Mediation teams · think tanks · humanitarian policy desks

Conflict analysis & diplomatic memory

Which commitments changed, and what did each party say at the time?

The Black Sea Grain Initiative is a concrete historical case: agreements, renewals, implementation reports, and the July 2023 termination require a careful separation of commitments and claims. Source: United Nations · initiative archive

Inside the capsule and workflow

Context to preserve: Link actors, agreement clauses, dated statements, implementation evidence, and contested interpretations. Preserve what was known at each briefing date.
Proposed review process: The proposed workflow would organize source documents into a capsule, draft a commitment timeline, and ask an analyst to check its citations and alternative explanations.
Intended output: A commitment ledger and handover brief with contested points intact.

Explore this application →

03 / Policy teams · public affairs · regulated businesses

Political & regulatory analysis

What does this proposal change, for whom, and under which assumptions?

A legislative consultation creates a real analytical workload: draft clauses, amendments, stakeholder submissions, institutional mandates, and conflicting assessments. This example is a proposed workflow, not a client case.

Inside the capsule and workflow

Context to preserve: Separate enacted rules from proposals, organizations from individual speakers, declared interests from analyst inferences, and deadlines from estimates.
Proposed review process: The proposed workflow would compare positions across consultation documents and produce a draft options memo. A reviewer would check sources, test assumptions, and examine omitted perspectives.
Intended output: An options memo with stakeholder positions, supporting evidence, and open questions.

Explore this application →

04 / Shipping · insurance · strategy and risk teams

Geopolitical risk & supply chains

Which developments change our exposure, and which remain unconfirmed?

A commercial risk desk following the Red Sea crisis must connect dated maritime-security developments to its own routes and dependencies. Public notices provide source material for a reviewed change assessment. Source: Council of the EU · February 2024

Inside the capsule and workflow

Context to preserve: Connect public notices, event chronology, company dependencies, scenarios, and assumptions. Keep historical reports distinct from a current operational assessment.
Proposed review process: The proposed workflow would compare a new document with the existing situation record. A risk analyst would assess any changes against the organization’s routes, dependencies, and assumptions.
Intended output: A dated change brief with explicit assumptions and review triggers.

Explore the risk workflow →

Start with one decision, one source set, one reviewer.

Bring public or non-sensitive documents and an example of a good brief. We can discuss what needs to be preserved, who should review the work, and how to assess citations, missing evidence, and the usefulness of the result.

Discuss a pilot →

Capsule concepts for every domain above · under development

The Context Capsule design brings four kinds of context together: who is asking, what is known, how to examine it, and what the answer needs to contain. Each field still requires its own methods and professional standards.

User capsule

The role, mandate, audience, and responsibilities of the person asking.

Situation capsule

Relevant sources, contested claims, relationships, and when events occurred or became known.

Tool capsule

Review methods, questions to ask, and assumptions that need testing.

Output capsule

A reviewed work product with its audience, source provenance, version and caveats.

What a Context Capsule is Why context matters Discuss a pilot

Search and terminology Machine-readable index