Signal Dashboard

Live measurement dashboard across 782 evaluated stories.

782 stories Core HRCB — HRCB score [-1,+1] across Editorial and Structural channels. How it works →

Global Averages (782 stories)

EQ
0.62
SO
0.53
SR
0.38
TD
0.46
PT
0.7 flags
VA
0.11
AR
0.40
DO
0.49

PT bar inverted (lower = better). VA bar normalized from [-1,+1] to [0,1]; actual value shown.

Tone Distribution

measured
399
urgent
86
detached
84
hopeful
81
celebratory
47
confrontational
30
solemn
20
cynical
11
empathetic
8
alarmist
5
reflective
1
playful
1
nostalgic
1
neutral
1
investigative
1
discouraged
1
critical
1
contemplative
1
confident
1
appreciative
1
anxious
1

Geographic Scope

global
490
national
160
unspecified
97
regional
22
local
13

Reading Level

moderate
345
accessible
223
technical
207
expert
7

Top Propaganda Techniques

loaded language
191
appeal to fear
96
appeal to authority
72
causal oversimplification
48
exaggeration
37

Derived Metrics

SETL [-1, +1] 0.11
Channel divergence — says one thing, does another.
Confidence [0, 1]
Evidence-weighted strength across provisions.
Volatility [0, 1]
Score consistency across provisions.
Consensus [-1, +1]
Multi-model agreement score.

Supplementary Signals

9 dimensions capturing how content communicates

EQ Epistemic Quality [0-1]
Source quality, evidence reasoning, uncertainty handling, purpose transparency.
details →
PT Propaganda Flags count
Detects 18 propaganda techniques: loaded language, fear appeals, ad hominem, and more.
details →
SO Solution Orientation [0-1]
Problem-only vs solution-oriented framing. High SO = content empowers, not just alarms.
details →
ET Emotional Tone VAD
Primary tone label + VAD: valence [-1,+1], arousal [0,1], dominance [0,1].
details →
SR Stakeholder Voice [0-1]
Who speaks vs who is spoken about — perspective count, voice balance, power axis.
details →
TF Temporal Framing categorical
Retrospective, present, or prospective focus with time horizon.
details →
GS Geographic Scope categorical
Local, national, regional, or global scope with specific regions.
details →
CL Complexity Level categorical
Reading level, jargon density, and assumed knowledge requirements.
details →
TD Transparency & Disclosure [0-1]
Author identified, conflicts of interest disclosed, funding sources disclosed.
details →

Transparency Observatory (782 of 782 stories measured)

Any disclosure
67%
Author identified
66%
Conflicts disclosed
18%
Funding disclosed
34%

Each rate is the share of stories where that field was measured and true. Avg TD score: 0.46. 54% high (≥ 0.5) · 0% low (≤ −0.3).

Content Accessibility (782 of 782 stories measured)

Jargon Density

Plain language
216
Some jargon
405
Heavy jargon
161

Assumed Knowledge

Self-contained
60
General audience
370
Domain knowledge
343
Expert only
9

1% of stories assume expert-level knowledge. 27% are plain-language + self-contained (fully accessible). Article 26 →

Temporal Framing (781 of 782 stories measured)

Retrospective
10%
Present
70%
Prospective
8%
Mixed
12%

Time Horizon

Immediate
262
Short-term
150
Medium-term
113
Long-term
34
Historical
79
Unspecified
131

Tech coverage looks backward 1.3× more than forward. Temporal framing shapes how rights issues are understood: retrospective analysis vs prospective advocacy signal different relationships to change.

Fair Witness Evidence transparency layer — observable facts vs inferences. details →
Evaluation Modes Full evaluation vs ~lite — cost/quality trade-offs. details →