Section pages
SOLUTIONS · STATECRAFT & POLICY
Connect positions, commitments and policy options.
A policy brief connects evidence to what an institution can do next. PRAXIS develops that workflow around reusable context: mandates, positions, commitments and deadlines, with sources and qualifications attached.
PRAXIS and DIALECTICA are under active development. The workflows below are intended applications; domain-specific quality needs practitioner evaluation.
Explore a worked example
See what changes when evidence stays connected.
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.
Policy desks · regulators · public affairs teams
Did the deadline change—or only the proposal?
A briefing can silently turn a consultation proposal into a binding requirement. Teams need the status, authority, and version of every obligation.
Recurring task: update a policy options memo as sources change. The analyst checks passages; the reviewer challenges claims; a team lead agrees the evaluation before relying on the workflow.
A policy desk officer prepares an update against a publication cutoff; a legal or policy reviewer checks authority, proposal status and effective dates before circulation.
The assessment only uses records available in the selected view.
2 source records
Selected source · P1
“The proposed reporting requirement would apply from 1 January, subject to adoption.”
Proposed obligation. Effective date is conditional.
A stakeholder request is neither an enacted rule nor evidence of likely adoption.
Initial · Policy options memo
What can we say?
The draft proposes a January start. Industry has requested a transition period. Adoption and the final deadline remain open.
Check the authoritative publication before advising on obligations. Preserve proposal history and stakeholder requests.
Does every stated obligation identify an authority, version, and effective date?
Historical factual context / EU ordinary legislative procedure
Approval is not every provision’s application.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, original Official Journal text dated 13 June 2024 and published 12 July 2024. This is a historical reading of that version, not the current consolidated law, legal advice or a deadline calculator.
Council approves the act
Procedure state: Council final approval. The announcement says signature, Official Journal publication and the entry rule follow. It does not make every obligation apply that day.
Council announcement and text version ↗Original act published in OJ L 2024/1689
Article 113: entry into force on the twentieth day following publication. Legal-effect rule and application provisions are distinct.
Official text / Article 113 ↗Original application schedule: general application 2 August 2026; Chapters I and II 2 February 2025; the listed Chapter III Section 4, V, VII, XII and Article 78 provisions 2 August 2025, except Article 101; Article 6(1) and corresponding obligations 2 August 2027. Article 111 contains separate transitional treatment for existing systems/models. These historical schedules must not be used as a current compliance determination.
Commission announces entry into force
Legal effect: entered into force. Obligation state: depends on the named provision, original schedule, exceptions and transitional rules; it is not a single universal compliance date.
Commission announcement ↗
No later event leaks into an earlier cutoff. This selector reconstructs publicly available dated references, not a historical TACITUS workspace capture. EU procedure is not a universal legislative state machine.
PROPOSED WORKFLOW
From fragmented evidence to a defensible policy brief.
The proposed workflow connects source material to a reviewed brief. It should keep claims distinct from commitments, separate stated positions from inferred interests, and make the supporting evidence easy to inspect.
01 · Sources
Cables, memos, laws, transcripts, reports
02 · DIALECTICA
Actors, claims, interests, commitments, events
03 · PRAXIS
Options memo, stakeholder map, SITREP, decision log
04 · Review
Check citations, challenge assumptions, approve the brief
Illustrative example · proposed workflow
A statement, a proposal, and a commitment are different things.
Suppose a minister signals support for a regional agreement. A draft follows, then an amendment. Reports describe a reversal. A useful assessment should reconstruct the record before accepting that narrative.
01 · Public statement
The minister expresses support in principle.
Was this a stated preference, a negotiating position, or an authorized commitment?
02 · Draft agreement
The text sets conditions and a proposed timetable.
Which conditions remain unresolved, and who has authority to accept them?
03 · Revised assessment
An amendment changes one condition; reporting describes a change of direction.
What actually changed in the text, and which competing explanations remain plausible?
This fictional example illustrates the analysis we want to support. The intended brief would distinguish the documentary record, the analyst’s interpretation, the available options, and the evidence still needed. It does not demonstrate a completed automated workflow.
Four settings for policy analysis.
Policy crisis rooms
Illustrative scenario · proposed applicationA subsidy reform faces fiscal conditions and public opposition. What constrains each option, and which assumptions need checking?
- Rapid actor, interest, and constraint mapping
- Policy-option briefs with source-bound assumptions
- Commitment and mandate tracking across agencies
- Comparison of changing public accounts
Diplomatic desks
Illustrative scenario · proposed applicationPublic statements and authorized readouts give different accounts of talks. What can the desk confidently report?
- Cable and transcript synthesis
- Negotiation position and red-line reconstruction
- Coalition and guarantor mapping
- Situation reports and options memos using reviewed context
Legislative & regulatory
Illustrative scenario · proposed applicationA proposed rule draws conflicting submissions. Which objections concern evidence, legal authority, or implementation?
- Stakeholder submissions and mandate analysis
- Clause-level constraint extraction
- Review of possible responses to an announcement
- Evidence packs for decision review
Institutional risk
Illustrative scenario · proposed applicationA leadership briefing draws on a fragmented file. Which conclusions have support, and what should remain an open question?
- Cross-document contradiction checks
- Review of changes in stakeholder language
- Source references for leadership briefings
- Decision logs for later review
A shared vocabulary for the policy record.
Our research framework separates who is involved, what they claim, and what they have committed to. These distinctions give an analyst specific questions to ask of the evidence before drafting a recommendation.
| Analytical concept | In statecraft & policy |
|---|---|
| Actor | Ministry, opposition bloc, donor, regulator, guarantor, affected public |
| Claim | "The reform is fiscally necessary but politically mistimed." |
| Interest | Fiscal stability. Public legitimacy. Coalition survival. Service continuity. |
| Commitment | Cabinet decision, donor condition, coalition pledge, treaty clause |
| Leverage | Budget control, legal authority, public mobilization, agenda-setting power |
Statecraft is context management
The hard part is rarely one document. It is the interaction between mandates, actors, evidence, public narrative, constraints, and timing.
Relationships deserve a closer look
A source summary may miss a relationship across documents. We are exploring graphs to help analysts examine commitments, conflicting claims, and changes over time.
Reception risk matters
An announcement can change how stakeholders respond. Wind Tunnel is a research project exploring how to examine possible reactions and expose assumptions before a decision.
Review is part of the work
An analyst needs to see where a conclusion comes from and what could undermine it. Citation quality and the ability to challenge an answer are central evaluation questions.
Judge the workspace by the quality of the review.
A policy evaluation should use a defined task and source set, then examine what practitioners can verify and correct. The question is whether assistance improves the brief and its review, including the parts where the evidence remains inconclusive.
- Mandate and authority. Does the draft distinguish what is desirable from what the institution is authorized and able to do?
- Evidence and alternatives. Can reviewers identify the sources behind a recommendation and examine a serious competing interpretation?
- Time and commitments. Are dates, conditions, revisions, and unresolved promises represented accurately?
- Review and handover. Can a new analyst locate a planted error, explain a correction, and continue the work?
These are proposed TACITUS evaluation questions. NIST’s ARIA manual, published 18 September 2026, provides a relevant methodological reference for combining model, adversarial, and user testing in a specific context. It does not validate TACITUS. See our research evaluation agenda and narrative-analysis application.
Capsule concepts for statecraft and policy · under development
A new analyst should be able to understand why a position changed. The capsule design aims to preserve the mandate, source history, analytical methods, and briefing requirements alongside the current assessment.
User capsule
The mandate, audiences, and standing positions against which a reviewer can check a draft.
Situation capsule
The policy record: what changed, when it became known, and which earlier assessment it replaced.
Tool capsule
Methods for comparing options, checking assumptions, and considering indirect effects.
Output capsule
Briefing requirements: structure, audience, citations, and unresolved questions to disclose.