INTRODUCTION
This document is a companion to the interactive SIGNAL ANALYSIS CONSOLE. It provides explanations and examples for each perception management tactic, as well as a breakdown of threat level classifications. The goal is to help users recognize narrative manipulation and conduct informed analysis.
THREAT LEVEL SCALE
| Score Range | Threat Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0–25 | Minimal Influence Detected | Content appears mostly organic with minor narrative shaping. May reflect author bias or common framing practices. |
| 26–50 | Narrative Pattern Detected | Repeating techniques or linguistic choices suggest mild to moderate editorial coordination. |
| 51–75 | Managed Perception Campaign | Systematic use of tactics indicates deliberate effort to shape reader perception at scale. |
| 76–99 | Strategic Information Operation | High concentration of control signals across multiple vectors (framing, omission, source). |
| 100+ | BLACKZONE INTEL WARFARE (Tier I) | Content likely serves as part of a coordinated disinformation or psychological influence campaign. |
PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT TACTICS
Each tactic includes a short description and examples.
1. Emotional Framing (Weight: 5)
Definition: Uses emotionally charged language to evoke a visceral reaction instead of presenting objective information.
- Examples: “devastating,” “heroic,” “disastrous failure,” “sickening hypocrisy”
2. Omission of Counterpoints (Weight: 6)
Definition: Leaves out important facts, alternative perspectives, or statistical data that would weaken the primary narrative.
- Examples: Only citing climate benefits of a policy without acknowledging economic costs.
3. Appeal to Authority (Weight: 4)
Definition: Relies heavily on experts, agencies, or official sources without providing transparency or counterbalances.
- Examples: “According to Pentagon officials…” without explaining their vested interests.
4. Silencing Dissent (Weight: 7)
Definition: Marginalizes, mocks, or suppresses those who question the dominant narrative.
- Examples: Referring to critics as conspiracy theorists or fringe extremists.
5. Coordinated Messaging (Weight: 8)
Definition: Identical or similar phrasing, arguments, or headlines across multiple outlets at the same time.
- Examples: Same soundbites in news, press releases, think tank reports.
6. Oversimplification (Weight: 3)
Definition: Reduces a complex issue into a binary or overly simplistic conclusion.
- Examples: “With us or against us,” “It’s either safe or it isn’t.”
7. Emotional Manipulation (Weight: 6)
Definition: Uses anecdotes, shocking imagery, or fear appeals to override critical thinking.
- Examples: Describing rare edge cases as common outcomes, using graphic imagery.
8. False Consensus (Weight: 4)
Definition: Implies widespread agreement where none may exist.
- Examples: “Experts agree,” “The science is settled.”
9. Lack of Source Transparency (Weight: 2)
Definition: Fails to cite sources, uses anonymous claims, or references unverifiable data.
- Examples: “According to insiders,” “Recent studies show…” without citation.
10. Ownership Conflict (Weight: 5)
Definition: Article or outlet has vested financial, political, or institutional interest in shaping the narrative.
- Examples: Coverage by a fossil fuel lobbyist-owned outlet pushing anti-renewable content.
INPUT FIELD EXPLAINERS
Input Article Field
Purpose:
- This field is used to paste an excerpt or full section of the article being analyzed.
- Acts as the reference source for identifying and validating observed tactics.
Why It Matters:
- Provides context for scoring decisions.
- Enables transparency and accuracy when reviewing a Signal Index assessment.
Scoring Impact:
- The field itself does not affect the numerical score.
- However, strong documentation here improves clarity and defensibility of the final threat assessment.
Best Practice:
- Paste 2–5 paragraphs that represent the article’s tone, structure, or intent. Focus on the body text rather than headlines.
Analyst Notes Field
Purpose:
- A space for subjective interpretation, insights, and remarks that may not be reflected in the hard scoring.
- Useful for future reference, peer review, or building long-term casefile patterns.
Why It Matters:
- Enhances qualitative analysis.
- Captures signals or red flags that are circumstantial, contextual, or part of a pattern over time.
Scoring Impact:
- Does not change the automated score.
- May justify why a low-scoring article is still flagged, or why a high-scoring article may be benign.
Best Practice:
- Include observations such as language trends, coordinated timing, author bias, or political context. Use standardized tags (e.g. #thinktank #greenpush #mil-ind-complex).
USAGE TIPS
- Start with obvious tactics and look for their frequency.
- Use analyst notes to document unique findings or cross-reference with known campaigns.
- Compare multiple articles for signature patterns.
- A high score does not automatically mean malicious intent—use discretion and context.
FUTURE UPDATES
- Author & publisher scoring system
- Preset profiles for common narrative types
- Visual casefile exports
This document will be updated alongside major SIGNAL ANALYSIS CONSOLE version changes.
Document version: v1.1 | Maintained by Max Theory Intelligence Lab