content-analysis

Perform structured content analysis on $ARGUMENTS.

If a URL is provided, fetch the content first. If content is pasted directly, proceed to Step 1.

Step 1: Entity extraction

Identify and categorise all named entities in the content:

Entity type	What to extract
People	Full names, roles/titles, organisations they're associated with
Organisations	Companies, institutions, government bodies, NGOs
Locations	Countries, cities, specific venues
Dates and timeframes	Specific dates, relative timeframes ("last year", "in Q3")
Products/technologies	Named products, platforms, systems
Financial figures	Any monetary amounts with their context

For each person or organisation that appears substantively (not just mentioned in passing), note: are they a source, a subject, or a referenced authority?

Step 2: Key claims

Extract the central claims the content makes — not summaries of sections, but the specific assertions:

• Primary claim: the main argument or finding
• Supporting claims: evidence or reasoning offered in support
• Implicit claims: assertions made without being explicitly stated (these are often the most significant)

For each claim, note: is it attributed to a named source, an anonymous source, the author's own assertion, or presented as established fact?

Step 3: Sentiment analysis

Assess sentiment at three levels:

Overall tone: Positive / Negative / Neutral / Mixed — with a one-sentence justification.

Targets of sentiment: Who or what is the sentiment directed at? A piece can be positive about one subject and critical of another simultaneously.

Language signals: Note specific word choices that carry sentiment weight. Loaded language, euphemisms, and emotionally charged terms are explicit choices — flag them.

Do not conflate the author's sentiment with the subject's actual situation. "The company faces significant challenges" is sentiment about the company's situation; whether those challenges are real is a separate question.

Step 4: Framing analysis

Framing is what the content foregrounds, backgrounds, and omits. It's not about accuracy — a piece can be factually correct and still frame things in a particular direction.

Assess:

Perspective: Whose viewpoint structures the piece? Who gets quoted, who is spoken about, and who is absent?

Foregrounding: What is emphasised — what appears in headlines, ledes, and summary statements?

Backgrounding: What is mentioned but minimised — relegated to later paragraphs, qualified, or framed as context?

Omissions: What relevant information, perspective, or context is absent? (This requires knowing enough about the topic to recognise what's missing.)

Framing devices: Note any: crisis framing, progress framing, conflict framing, human interest framing, responsibility framing. These structures shape how readers process information.

State your framing observations as interpretive judgements, not facts: "The piece frames X as..." not "The piece proves X is..."

Step 5: Narrative identification

What story is this piece telling? Narratives are recurring story structures that activate particular audience responses:

• Hero/villain: someone is doing the right thing against opposition
• Crisis/urgency: things are bad and getting worse, action is needed now
• Progress/innovation: things are improving, this development is positive
• Conflict/battle: two sides are opposed, the reader must choose
• Revelation/exposure: hidden truth is being brought to light
• Human cost: abstract issues rendered personal through individual stories

Multiple narratives can operate simultaneously. Identifying the dominant narrative helps explain why a piece feels the way it does even when the facts are accurate.

Step 6: Source structure

How is the piece sourced?

• Named primary sources: people who are on the record
• Named secondary sources: cited studies, reports, or prior coverage
• Anonymous sources: how many, how described, and for what claims?
• No attribution: claims asserted without any source

A piece heavily reliant on anonymous sources or unattributed assertions warrants lower confidence regardless of publication credibility.

Rules

• Framing analysis is interpretive. Own the interpretation — don't present it as fact.
• Sentiment applies to the author's choices, not the subject's reality.
• Omission analysis requires topic knowledge. If you don't know enough to identify what's missing, say so.
• Implicit claims are often the most significant. Name them explicitly.
• One piece is rarely sufficient for conclusions about a topic. Note when analysis of additional coverage would strengthen or weaken findings.

Output format

## Content analysis: [Title or source]

**Date of content:** [publication date if known]
**Date of analysis:** [today]
**Word count:** [approximate]

### Entities

**People:** [name — role — source/subject/authority]
**Organisations:** [name — role in piece]
**Key figures cited:** [financial amounts, dates, statistics with context]

### Key claims

**Primary claim:** [the central assertion]
**Supporting claims:** [bulleted list with attribution type for each]
**Implicit claims:** [unstated but operative assertions]

### Sentiment

**Overall tone:** [Positive / Negative / Neutral / Mixed]
**Sentiment targets:** [who/what the tone is directed at]
**Notable language signals:** [specific word choices worth flagging]

### Framing

**Perspective:** [whose viewpoint structures the piece]
**Foregrounded:** [what is emphasised]
**Backgrounded:** [what is minimised]
**Omissions:** [what's absent — or "insufficient topic knowledge to assess"]
**Dominant framing device:** [crisis / progress / conflict / revelation / other]

### Narrative

[What story is being told, and what audience response it activates]

### Source structure

| Source type | Count | For what claims |
|---|---|---|
| Named primary | — | — |
| Named secondary | — | — |
| Anonymous | — | — |
| Unattributed | — | — |

### Summary assessment

[2-3 sentences: what this analysis tells you about the content beyond its face value]