{"schema_version":"1.0","slug":"information-influence","title":"Information & Influence","status":"live","current_through":"2026-08-13","current_through_display":"August 13, 2026","primary_question":"Which national information system is better able to understand an external information environment, align policy and narrative, produce and distribute relevant content, earn credibility, create durable cultural affinity, convert attention into choices or behavior, counter hostile manipulation without destroying information integrity, and learn from observed effects?","definition":"Information is the instrument; influence is an evidenced effect.","boundary":"A current public-source comparison of how U.S.-anchored and PRC-centered information systems understand foreign environments, align narratives, reach relevant actors, earn trust, create cultural affinity, convert effects, counter manipulation, and learn.","benchmark":"Observed informational effect, with state, partner, independent ecosystem, cultural, and covert contributions attributed separately.","bottom_line":"The two systems hold asymmetric advantages at different causal stages. The PRC-centered system has a low-confidence edge in centralized Narrative Policy. The U.S.-anchored system has low- to moderate-confidence edges in Distribution Reach and Cultural Influence. Content Agility, Credibility & Trust, and Counter-Influence are Contested. Information Understanding, Influence Conversion, and Learning & Adaptation are explicitly unscored because public comparative evidence does not reach their decisive stages. These positions cannot be added into an overall national-information-power score.","axis":{"left":"PRC-centered advantage","center":"Contested","right":"U.S. / partner advantage","unscored":"Insufficient comparative basis","note":"Six capabilities support positions; three remain explicitly unscored. Positions use different causal stages and cannot be averaged into an overall information-power score."},"causal_chain":[{"stage":"Availability","rule":"The audience could encounter the content or relationship."},{"stage":"Attention","rule":"Verified humans actually consumed or participated, with duplication and bot controls."},{"stage":"Comprehension","rule":"The intended meaning was understood."},{"stage":"Credibility","rule":"The information or messenger was believed or relied upon."},{"stage":"Affinity Or Preference","rule":"Evaluation or relational orientation changed."},{"stage":"Decision Or Behavior","rule":"A consequential choice or act changed with plausible attribution."},{"stage":"Persistence","rule":"The effect survived time, cost, countermessage, policy change, or shock."}],"cross_cutting_findings":[{"id":"II-X01","finding":"Government coordination and national influence are not the same asset.","implication":"The PRC can task more of its information system directly; the U.S. benefits from larger independent ecosystems whose credibility and reach cannot be commanded. Both control and autonomy are recorded instead of collapsed."},{"id":"II-X02","finding":"Current reputation and durable cultural attraction point in different directions.","implication":"Pew and Gallup often favor China in 2025-2026 reputation, while cultural, education, language, and destination indicators continue to favor the U.S./partner system. They measure different mechanisms and time horizons."},{"id":"II-X03","finding":"Reach is the best-measured official capability and still the easiest to overclaim.","implication":"The U.S. has a method-documented consumption series; PRC public records emphasize availability. Neither followers nor potential carriage are treated as equivalent to human attention."},{"id":"II-X04","finding":"Message quality is conditional and coercive control can be self-defeating.","implication":"PRC performance narratives can persuade, combative messages can backfire, and censorship can block adversaries while degrading integrity and feedback."},{"id":"II-X05","finding":"Behavioral conversion is the binding evidentiary constraint.","implication":"The public literature is strongest on exposure and attitudes, weakest on natural-exposure decisions, behavior, and persistence. The domain withholds the category rather than converting upstream advantages into outcomes."},{"id":"II-X06","finding":"Observability is asymmetric.","implication":"Open systems disclose failure; closed systems suppress failure. Transparency is valued for integrity but is not automatically coded as better operational performance, and opacity is never coded as zero capability."}],"regional_sensitivity":[{"region":"Indo-Pacific","finding":"U.S. cultural and alliance-associated attraction remains strong in several countries, while China dominates perceived economic influence and can lead hypothetical alignment among Southeast Asian opinion leaders."},{"region":"Europe","finding":"Current U.S. reputation has fallen sharply, yet cultural and institutional ties remain deep; the present result is unusually leader- and policy-sensitive."},{"region":"Africa","finding":"External-power perceptions coexist with strong demands for African agency; material development and representation concerns make information-only attribution especially hazardous."},{"region":"Middle East and North Africa","finding":"U.S. policy shocks and aid changes weigh heavily on reputation, while China benefits from economic and noninterference narratives; source-specific trust and behavior remain sparse."},{"region":"Latin America and the Caribbean","finding":"Reliability assessments have become more split and country-specific; proximity, migration, trade, ideology, and history complicate information attribution."}],"policy_implications":["Do not optimize message volume before defining the intended decision or behavior and how it will be observed.","Treat policy-message alignment as a policy design problem, not merely a communications discipline problem.","Preserve editorial independence and transparent correction where credibility depends on messengers not perceived as state spokespeople.","Measure cultural contact through longitudinal affinity and revealed choice, not exports or participation alone.","Evaluate counter-influence with a common attack set, misses, false positives, belief effects, rights costs, and recovery.","Publish unscored outcomes when the comparison stops at inputs or attitudes; do not force all nine categories onto the axis."],"method":{"name":"Exposure-to-persistent-effect chain","stages":["Availability","Attention","Comprehension","Credibility","Affinity Or Preference","Decision Or Behavior","Persistence"],"rules":["Information is the instrument; influence is an evidenced effect.","Availability, output volume, followers, carriage, enrollment, and cultural popularity establish exposure—not influence.","A directional position requires positive comparative evidence for both systems at the capability's decisive stage.","A failure or missing record on one side never establishes an advantage for the other.","State-controlled, partner, independent ecosystem, diaspora, cultural, and covert contributions remain separately attributed.","Policy performance from defense, economics, or diplomacy is treated as an enabling or rival cause, not credited twice as informational power.","Counter-influence must account for misses, false positives, rights costs, exposure reduction, and recovery—not takedowns or censorship alone.","No weighted overall information-power composite is calculated."]},"categories":[{"id":"II-D01","number":1,"slug":"information-understanding","title":"Information Understanding","position":null,"position_label":"Insufficient comparative basis","axis_label":"Insufficient comparative basis","axis_position":null,"tone":"unscored","is_scored":false,"confidence":"Not assessed","fact_confidence":"High","comparative_confidence":"Not assessed","comparative_observability":"not assessed","evidence_role":"split_or_inconclusive","comparative_mechanism":"","decision_rule":"Information understanding receives comparative credit only when audience, narrative, network, or behavior insight is validated against later observation, demonstrably changes a plan, and improves a downstream result relative to a plausible baseline. Collection volume, surveillance access, polling, taxonomies, dashboards, and doctrine are inputs only.","judgment":"Both systems clearly possess substantial research and monitoring apparatus. U.S. public manuals, audience research, program evaluations, and oversight provide unusually visible process evidence; PRC doctrine, localization, media networks, and central direction show sustained investment. Public evidence does not provide a matched portfolio of forecasts, validation errors, research-use decisions, and resulting effect gains. Greater U.S. transparency cannot be converted into a U.S. advantage, while PRC opacity cannot be converted into a PRC deficit. The only defensible judgment is unscored.","decisive_reason":"Both systems possess substantial research apparatus, but no matched public portfolio validates insight accuracy, use, and outcome gains.","findings":[{"label":"Research architecture","finding":"Positive evidence for both","basis":"Both systems require audience and environment analysis, but organization and disclosure differ.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"},{"label":"Validated insight accuracy","finding":"Insufficient comparative basis","basis":"No matched public forecast-error or validation distribution exists.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Not assessed"},{"label":"Insight use and downstream gain","finding":"Insufficient comparative basis","basis":"Neither system discloses a representative loop from validated insight through changed design to better effect.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Not assessed"}],"counterevidence":["U.S. guidance and USAGM reporting contain mature research, planning, and validation concepts.","External U.S. program evaluations show real longitudinal research and feedback capacity.","PRC doctrine repeatedly emphasizes audience differentiation, localization, discourse research, and communication effectiveness.","GAO and OIG findings document persistent U.S. research, coordination, data-age, and evaluation weaknesses.","No source universe provides comparable PRC negative findings or forecast-error records."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not contested","explanation":"Contested requires positive comparative evidence on both systems at the decisive stage. Here the evidence is mostly one-sided process and input evidence, so missing data cannot be disguised as a tie."},{"label":"Why not us partner edge or lead","explanation":"U.S. documentation and evaluation transparency reveal machinery and weaknesses, not a matched accuracy or effect advantage."},{"label":"Why not prc centered edge or lead","explanation":"Central coordination, monitoring scale, and localization do not demonstrate that insight is accurate, used, or outcome-improving."},{"label":"Publication boundary","explanation":"Publish only as an explicit unscored ruling; do not imply parity or infer a winner from opacity."},{"label":"What would permit a position","explanation":"Matched validation and repeated-effect records covering both systems."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A01","assessment":"Strong: classified intelligence and proprietary market research may contain the decisive evidence but are unavailable for a public comparison."},{"id":"II-A02","assessment":"Strong: open U.S. institutions disclose failures while PRC institutions selectively disclose doctrine and successes, producing a severe observability asymmetry."},{"id":"II-A03","assessment":"Strong: later policy success or failure may reflect resources and policy design rather than audience insight."}],"sensitivity":{"to_us_partner_edge":"Requires a representative matched campaign sample showing lower forecast error, higher documented research use, and larger downstream gains after insight-led redesign.","to_prc_centered_edge":"Requires the same evidence for PRC campaigns using independently reviewable methods and failures as well as successes.","to_contested":"Requires positive, comparable accuracy and use evidence for both systems even if their strengths offset.","does_not_move_with":["Additional polling counts","More monitoring centers","More languages or bureaus","Unvalidated actor success stories"]},"source_ids":["II-S001","II-S002","II-S005","II-S006","II-S007","II-S010","II-S014","II-S016","II-S017","II-S020","II-S022","II-S023","II-S025","II-S026","II-S052"],"metric_ids":["II-M01","II-M02","II-M03","II-M04"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C02","II-C27"],"observation_ids":["II-O001","II-O002","II-O003","II-O004","II-O005","II-O006"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d01","institutional_family":["China Media Group","Freedom House","GAO","PRC party-state","State OIG and USAGM","U.S. Department of State","U.S. Department of State ECA","USAGM","Xinhua"]},{"id":"II-D02","number":2,"slug":"narrative-policy","title":"Narrative Policy","position":"PRC-centered edge","position_label":"PRC-centered edge","axis_label":"PRC-centered edge","axis_position":25,"tone":"competitor","is_scored":true,"confidence":"Low","fact_confidence":"High","comparative_confidence":"Low","comparative_observability":"limited","evidence_role":"comparative_mechanism","comparative_mechanism":"Centralized multi-year alignment plus bounded persuasion evidence supports a PRC edge, narrowed by censorship, contradiction risk, and backfire cases.","decision_rule":"Narrative policy is coherent when declared interests, values, policy purpose, institutional messages, and observed conduct remain mutually intelligible across consequential events. Uniform slogans or censorship are not sufficient. Persuasion evidence strengthens a call, but policy-message contradiction and repair determine whether formal coordination survives contact with reality.","judgment":"The PRC-centered system has a low-confidence edge in current narrative-policy alignment. It sustains a centrally directed, multi-year framework connecting party-state policy, development and performance narratives, state media, culture, and localization, and representative PRC messages have produced persuasive effects in a preregistered multicountry experiment. The edge is not a lead: combative messaging has backfired, censorship can conceal contradiction rather than repair it, and local backlash and conduct can damage credibility. The U.S. system benefits from pluralism and independently credible voices, but visible 2025-2026 changes in foreign assistance, international media, institutions, and alliance rhetoric created unusually large contradictions with longstanding reliability and freedom narratives.","decisive_reason":"Centralized multi-year alignment plus bounded persuasion evidence supports a PRC edge, narrowed by censorship, contradiction risk, and backfire cases.","findings":[{"label":"Formal policy-message alignment","finding":"PRC-centered edge","basis":"Sustained central doctrine connects policy, narrative, state media, culture, and localized implementation.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Moderate"},{"label":"Narrative persuasion","finding":"PRC-centered edge","basis":"Rare experiments show strong representative performance messages can persuade, but tone and context can reverse effects.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"},{"label":"Credible shock repair","finding":"Contested","basis":"Both systems show serious claim-conduct contradictions and incomplete public correction records.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"}],"counterevidence":["Positive aid-and-friendship messages modestly improved Indian attitudes, while negative wolf-warrior messages were ineffective or backfired.","PRC conduct, censorship, and local controversies can contradict benign-development and mutual-respect narratives.","U.S. independent media, entertainment, universities, civil society, and diplomats can supply credible narratives without central control.","A U.S. embassy experiment inside China found conditions under which democracy messaging improved attitudes.","Current U.S. policy-message contradictions may reflect a coherent strategic change rather than failed alignment."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not prc centered lead","explanation":"No matched global contradiction rate, independent shock-repair series, or durable persuasion portfolio supports a broad material gap; wolf-warrior failures and censorship costs are consequential."},{"label":"Why not contested","explanation":"The PRC has positive evidence at both the institutional-alignment and experimental-persuasion stages, while current U.S. contradiction evidence is unusually broad and independently observed."},{"label":"Why not us partner edge or lead","explanation":"Pluralism, cultural credibility, and independent media are assets, but they do not presently overcome central policy-message discontinuity or establish a coherent comparative advantage."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A04","assessment":"Decisive for confidence: centralization mechanically increases consistency but may reduce truth correction and credible pluralism."},{"id":"II-A05","assessment":"Strong: experimental effects may reflect the substantive appeal of selected policies rather than superior narrative machinery."},{"id":"II-A06","assessment":"Strong: the current U.S. result may be administration-specific and reversible rather than a durable system weakness."},{"id":"II-A07","assessment":"Strong: PRC contradictions may be less publicly observable because criticism and internal records are suppressed."}],"sensitivity":{"down_to_contested":"Move to Contested if matched event coding shows PRC claim-conduct contradiction, concealment, and failed repair comparable to or worse than the current U.S. record, or if U.S. policy and message stabilize.","up_to_prc_centered_lead":"Requires repeated persuasion and shock-repair advantages across regions with natural exposure and persistence.","to_us_partner_edge":"Requires a durable U.S. policy-message repair plus matched evidence that pluralistic narrative sources are more coherent, credible, and persuasive across consequential events.","current_call_not_robust_to":["A major PRC policy-narrative shock with visible foreign backlash","Rapid repair of U.S. policy-message continuity","Matched contradiction data that reverse the observed pattern"]},"source_ids":["II-S001","II-S002","II-S003","II-S011","II-S013","II-S014","II-S015","II-S020","II-S021","II-S022","II-S023","II-S024","II-S034","II-S035","II-S049","II-S050","II-S051","II-S052","II-S067"],"metric_ids":["II-M05","II-M06","II-M07","II-M08"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C05","II-C20","II-C21"],"observation_ids":["II-O007","II-O008","II-O009","II-O010","II-O011","II-O012"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d02","institutional_family":["Academic research team","Arab Barometer","Freedom House","Gallup World Poll","PRC party-state","Pew Research Center","State OIG and USAGM","U.S. Congress","U.S. Department of State","USAGM"]},{"id":"II-D03","number":3,"slug":"content-agility","title":"Content Agility","position":"Contested","position_label":"Contested","axis_label":"Contested","axis_position":50,"tone":"contested","is_scored":true,"confidence":"Low","fact_confidence":"Moderate","comparative_confidence":"Low","comparative_observability":"limited","evidence_role":"split_or_inconclusive","comparative_mechanism":"","decision_rule":"Content agility requires useful speed, local linguistic and cultural fit, factual quality, transparent correction, and actual priority-audience uptake. Output volume, language count, AI use, and rapid low-engagement spam are inputs or failure modes, not decisive results.","judgment":"The category is Contested. PRC central direction, global state-media production, localization policy, and AI-enabled output support fast scalable production, and selected PRC content persuades when message and audience fit. U.S. state-funded and independent media bring extensive local expertise, editorial safeguards, and large measured audiences. Neither system has a matched event portfolio combining event-to-content latency, target-audience localization tests, factual and correction quality, and real uptake. The DRAGONBRIDGE record is decisive against equating enormous output with agility: much of the observed content received practically no organic attention.","decisive_reason":"PRC scale and speed offset U.S. local expertise, quality controls, and measured uptake; no matched latency-quality-uptake portfolio decides the category.","findings":[{"label":"Production speed and scale","finding":"PRC-centered edge","basis":"Central networks and automation support rapid multilingual output, though independent latency data are absent.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"},{"label":"Localization and content fit","finding":"Contested","basis":"Both systems possess local expertise and examples of successful and failed fit.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"},{"label":"Quality, correction, and uptake","finding":"Contested","basis":"U.S. editorial structures and measured audiences are positive; neither has matched error, correction, and event-uptake data.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"}],"counterevidence":["CGTN and Xinhua claim broad multilingual and bureau networks.","USAGM reported work in 63 languages, more than 100 markets, and extensive local expertise.","Representative CGTN messages persuaded in a multicountry experiment.","Wolf-warrior messaging backfired in a hostile bilateral setting.","Most observed DRAGONBRIDGE channels and videos achieved negligible organic engagement.","Current U.S. international-media disruption may reduce previously observed agility and reach."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not prc centered edge or lead","explanation":"Output scale and AI use are not decisive; detected PRC-linked campaigns often achieved negligible engagement and negative messaging can backfire."},{"label":"Why not us partner edge or lead","explanation":"Large measured audiences and editorial standards do not establish faster, better localized, and more responsive event content, especially after current institutional disruption."},{"label":"Why contested not unscored","explanation":"Both systems have positive evidence beyond mere doctrine: measured U.S. uptake and experimentally persuasive PRC content support real but offsetting strengths."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A08","assessment":"Strong: platform and media-system structure, not national capability, determines production and distribution tempo."},{"id":"II-A09","assessment":"Strong: message content and policy appeal explain uptake more than agility."},{"id":"II-A10","assessment":"Strong: detected covert campaigns are selected failures and may understate more competent undisclosed operations."},{"id":"II-A11","assessment":"Strong: independent U.S. cultural and media production is not government-taskable even when it benefits national influence."}],"sensitivity":{"to_prc_centered_edge":"Requires matched event evidence of faster accurate production, better localization, and equal or greater priority-audience uptake after bot and paid-placement controls.","to_us_partner_edge":"Requires post-2025 matched evidence of superior correction, local fit, and uptake within the relevant decision window.","to_insufficient_comparative_basis":"Revert to unscored if measured U.S. audience and experimental PRC persuasion are judged too far downstream and mismatched to inform agility components.","does_not_move_with":["More posts","More AI-generated items","More claimed followers","Faster content without quality or uptake"]},"source_ids":["II-S001","II-S010","II-S011","II-S020","II-S023","II-S025","II-S026","II-S030","II-S049","II-S050","II-S052","II-S058","II-S059","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063","II-S068"],"metric_ids":["II-M09","II-M10","II-M11","II-M12"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C11","II-C12","II-C16","II-C26"],"observation_ids":["II-O013","II-O014","II-O015","II-O016","II-O017","II-O018"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d03","institutional_family":["Academic research team","Associated Press","China Media Group","Freedom House","Google","Microsoft","OpenAI","PRC party-state","U.S. Department of State","USAGM","Xinhua"]},{"id":"II-D04","number":4,"slug":"distribution-reach","title":"Distribution Reach","position":"U.S. / partner edge","position_label":"U.S. / partner edge","axis_label":"U.S. / partner edge","axis_position":75,"tone":"partner","is_scored":true,"confidence":"Low","fact_confidence":"High","comparative_confidence":"Low","comparative_observability":"limited","evidence_role":"comparative_mechanism","comparative_mechanism":"The U.S. side retains the only large admitted method-documented global consumption estimate and broader independent ecosystem, but current disruption and unmatched PRC data preclude a lead.","decision_rule":"Distribution reach is independently measured, unduplicated, sustained human consumption among a declared priority audience, including resilience through intermediaries and after blocking or platform change. Potential availability, posts, bureaus, accounts, followers, impressions, carriage, or English prevalence cannot decide the category.","judgment":"The U.S.-anchored system retains a low-confidence edge. USAGM's FY2024 report provides the only admitted large, method-documented, unduplicated global consumption estimate in this comparison—427 million adults weekly outside the United States, explicitly excluding China and disclosing rolling-survey limits. This official reach sits alongside a vast, independently operated U.S. media, platform, education, and cultural ecosystem and partner channels that are available in specific cases. PRC state media, bureaus, and content-sharing networks are global and can insert material into local ecosystems, but their public totals overwhelmingly describe availability, followers, or activity rather than comparable consumption. The call is narrow because U.S. official media experienced severe 2025-2026 disruption and no current post-disruption matched consumption audit exists.","decisive_reason":"The U.S. side retains the only large admitted method-documented global consumption estimate and broader independent ecosystem, but current disruption and unmatched PRC data preclude a lead.","findings":[{"label":"Measured human consumption","finding":"U.S. / partner edge","basis":"The U.S. side has a documented unduplicated audience series; no admitted matched PRC global series exists.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Moderate"},{"label":"Potential state-controlled availability","finding":"PRC-centered edge","basis":"CGTN, Xinhua, and content-sharing architecture provide extensive centrally available supply.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"},{"label":"Resilient intermediary networks","finding":"Contested","basis":"Both systems use affiliates, partners, platforms, and circumvention, but common retention data after disruption are absent.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"}],"counterevidence":["CGTN claims availability in more than 160 countries and more than 600 million followers.","Xinhua claims 184 overseas bureaus and extensive content supply.","AidData finds PRC content-sharing partnerships associated with changes in leadership approval in East Asia and Pacific.","USAGM cannot produce current representative audience data in China and several denied markets.","USAGM's global total can include country estimates measured up to five years earlier.","Current U.S. media and program disruption may reduce the continuing value of FY2024 reach."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not us partner lead","explanation":"The U.S. total uses rolling surveys, excludes important denied markets, is actor-reported, predates major disruption, and cannot be directly compared with current PRC consumption."},{"label":"Why not contested","explanation":"The U.S. side has positive consumption evidence at the decisive stage, while the PRC side's public global totals remain primarily potential availability and activity rather than a missing-data inference alone."},{"label":"Why not prc centered edge or lead","explanation":"Bureaus, countries, followers, and content-sharing agreements do not establish unduplicated sustained human consumption; detected high-volume campaigns often had negligible engagement."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A12","assessment":"Decisive for confidence: unmatched measurement methods can create an artificial U.S. edge because U.S. institutions publish audience surveys and PRC institutions publish supply counts."},{"id":"II-A13","assessment":"Strong: English-language utility and independent commercial culture generate reach that is not government-created or taskable."},{"id":"II-A14","assessment":"Strong: censorship and survey restrictions undercount real U.S. reach in China while simultaneously constraining it."},{"id":"II-A15","assessment":"Strong: 2025-2026 U.S. institutional disruption may have invalidated the latest measured baseline."}],"sensitivity":{"down_to_contested":"Move to Contested if independent post-2025 U.S. consumption falls materially or if matched PRC state-media and partner consumption approaches it in priority markets.","up_to_us_partner_lead":"Requires current, independently audited, repeated consumption advantages across consequential regions plus demonstrated resilience after disruption.","to_prc_centered_edge":"Requires independently measured, unduplicated PRC consumption above the U.S.-anchored system in a broad matched priority-audience portfolio.","current_call_not_robust_to":["A large post-disruption U.S. audience decline","A credible global PRC audience audit","Evidence that current U.S. totals substantially double-count or overage consumption"]},"source_ids":["II-S005","II-S010","II-S011","II-S012","II-S013","II-S014","II-S015","II-S025","II-S026","II-S030","II-S039","II-S046","II-S047","II-S048","II-S052","II-S058"],"metric_ids":["II-M13","II-M14","II-M15","II-M16"],"case_ids":["II-C11","II-C12","II-C13","II-C16","II-C29"],"observation_ids":["II-O019","II-O020","II-O021","II-O022","II-O023","II-O024"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d04","institutional_family":["AidData","China Media Group","Freedom House","Google","Lowy Institute","PRC party-state","State OIG and USAGM","U.S. Congress","U.S. Department of State","USAGM","Xinhua"]},{"id":"II-D05","number":5,"slug":"credibility-trust","title":"Credibility & Trust","position":"Contested","position_label":"Contested","axis_label":"Contested","axis_position":50,"tone":"contested","is_scored":true,"confidence":"Moderate","fact_confidence":"High","comparative_confidence":"Moderate","comparative_observability":"partial","evidence_role":"split_or_inconclusive","comparative_mechanism":"","decision_rule":"Credibility requires belief in or trusted reliance on named sources, institutions, or messengers under uncertainty, supported by claim-conduct consistency. Country favorability, leader approval, familiarity, and broad nation-brand reputation are contextual evidence but cannot alone decide source credibility.","judgment":"Credibility and trust are Contested. The most current broad surveys show a major reversal: China now receives higher favorability or leadership approval than the United States in many countries, driven by both improving PRC views and a sharp current U.S. decline. Yet these measures are highly policy- and leader-sensitive and do not measure trust in CGTN, Xinhua, U.S. diplomats, USAGM networks, universities, independent media, or local messengers on matched terms. The U.S. system retains structural credibility assets in independent media, open contestation, correction, cultural institutions, and partners, but current press-freedom and reliability concerns weaken any automatic advantage. PRC central message consistency and improving reputation are positive, while censorship, opaque correction, and very poor information-freedom conditions impose major integrity costs. The evidence supports offsetting positive cases, not an edge.","decisive_reason":"Current reputation often favors China, while source integrity, freedom, and messenger trust produce offsetting and regional U.S./partner strengths.","findings":[{"label":"Current national and leadership reputation","finding":"PRC-centered edge","basis":"Pew and Gallup independently show China ahead in many current markets, with regional exceptions.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: High"},{"label":"Source-specific media and messenger trust","finding":"Insufficient comparative basis","basis":"No current global matched source panel covers the two systems and their independent/partner messengers.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Not assessed"},{"label":"Information integrity and claim correction","finding":"U.S. / partner edge","basis":"Open contestation and independent correction are stronger, but U.S. press-freedom decline, polarization, and policy contradiction narrow the advantage.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"}],"counterevidence":["Pew found the U.S. more favorably viewed in six surveyed countries and much more reliable in the Philippines.","Pew still found broader international belief that the U.S. respects personal freedoms, although the gap narrowed.","Brand Finance ranked the U.S. first overall, in familiarity, and in influence despite China's reputation lead.","PRC messages persuaded in one multicountry experiment, but negative wolf-warrior messages backfired in India.","U.S. press-freedom ranking and domestic news trust have deteriorated, weakening a simple open-system advantage.","PRC internet and press freedom remain among the world's worst, creating serious integrity costs."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not prc centered edge or lead","explanation":"Current country image is not source-specific trust; PRC censorship, opaque correction, and weak press freedom are major counterevidence, and important regional publics still trust the U.S. more."},{"label":"Why not us partner edge or lead","explanation":"Independent media and open institutions cannot erase convergent current survey evidence of declining U.S. reliability, reputation, and leadership approval."},{"label":"Why contested not unscored","explanation":"Matched global opinion surveys and experimental message effects provide positive comparative evidence for both systems even though the source-specific trust component remains unscored."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A16","assessment":"Decisive: foreign policy and leader performance, not information capability, drive much current reputation."},{"id":"II-A17","assessment":"Strong: U.S. media pluralism creates visible contradiction and criticism that can reduce simple trust measures while increasing information reliability."},{"id":"II-A18","assessment":"Strong: PRC censorship and survey sensitivity can bias measured domestic credibility and conceal correction failures."},{"id":"II-A19","assessment":"Strong: trust is audience-, issue-, and messenger-specific; global averages conceal opposite regional results."}],"sensitivity":{"to_prc_centered_edge":"Requires current source-specific trust and crisis-reliance measures—not only national or leader favorability—to converge across multiple regions.","to_us_partner_edge":"Requires stabilization of current policy effects and matched evidence that independent U.S./partner messengers are relied on more under uncertainty.","to_insufficient_comparative_basis":"Use unscored if broad reputation measures are excluded entirely and the remaining source-specific evidence is judged too sparse.","current_call_robust_to":["Treating nation-brand indices as context rather than outcomes","Separating domestic information freedom from foreign trust","Regional exceptions in both directions"]},"source_ids":["II-S010","II-S011","II-S020","II-S024","II-S034","II-S035","II-S036","II-S037","II-S038","II-S049","II-S050","II-S051","II-S054","II-S055","II-S056","II-S057","II-S064","II-S066","II-S067"],"metric_ids":["II-M17","II-M18","II-M19","II-M20"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C05","II-C06","II-C07","II-C18","II-C19","II-C20","II-C21","II-C22","II-C23","II-C24","II-C25"],"observation_ids":["II-O025","II-O026","II-O027","II-O028","II-O029","II-O030"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d05","institutional_family":["Academic research team","Arab Barometer","Brand Finance","Freedom House","Gallup World Poll","ISEAS","PRC party-state","Pew Research Center","RSF","Reuters Institute","USAGM"]},{"id":"II-D06","number":6,"slug":"cultural-influence","title":"Cultural Influence","position":"U.S. / partner edge","position_label":"U.S. / partner edge","axis_label":"U.S. / partner edge","axis_position":75,"tone":"partner","is_scored":true,"confidence":"Moderate","fact_confidence":"High","comparative_confidence":"Moderate","comparative_observability":"partial","evidence_role":"comparative_mechanism","comparative_mechanism":"Convergent cultural attraction and revealed-choice evidence favors the U.S./partner system, while PRC cultural growth is rapid but mostly observed at exposure rather than persistent affinity.","decision_rule":"Cultural influence requires evidence that culture, education, language, entertainment, heritage, sport, tourism, diaspora, or people-to-people contact produces affinity, trust, preference, a relationship, a consequential choice, or persistence. Output, exports, popularity, awards, exchange enrollment, audience size, and tourism counts establish exposure only.","judgment":"The U.S.-anchored system has a moderate-confidence cultural-influence edge. Convergent independent evidence shows broader U.S. attraction across arts and entertainment, international education, language use, cultural projection, and several revealed destination preferences. These advantages arise heavily from independent and commercial ecosystems and the global utility of English, so they are national assets but not fully government-taskable. The PRC is narrowing parts of the gap through games, audiovisual products, travel, language learning, and state-supported cultural exports; however, most current PRC evidence stops at supply, revenue, enrollment, or exposure rather than durable affinity or choice. The edge is not a lead because China is growing quickly, current U.S. reputation has deteriorated, and many cultural-choice measures have powerful noncultural causes.","decisive_reason":"Convergent cultural attraction and revealed-choice evidence favors the U.S./partner system, while PRC cultural growth is rapid but mostly observed at exposure rather than persistent affinity.","findings":[{"label":"Arts, entertainment, and cultural projection","finding":"U.S. / partner edge","basis":"Independent regional and global indicators converge on stronger U.S. attraction while recording rapid PRC gains.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Moderate"},{"label":"Education and language attraction","finding":"U.S. / partner edge","basis":"Observed study and language choices remain strongly U.S./English oriented, with important utility and access confounders.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Moderate"},{"label":"Contact-to-affinity and persistence","finding":"Contested","basis":"Both systems run large exchange and contact networks, but matched longitudinal effects are sparse and selected.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"}],"counterevidence":["China was the largest annual cultural-influence gainer in Lowy's 2025 Asia Power Index.","Chinese was Duolingo's fastest-growing language in twelve countries and second-fastest in the United States in 2025.","PRC games, audiovisual content, films, travel, and cultural exports show rapid international growth.","Pew and Gallup current reputation measures often favor China over the United States.","ISEAS respondents narrowly preferred the United States over China for holiday and more clearly for living or working, but Japan and regional destinations led both categories.","New international student enrollment in the United States declined even as the total remained at a record level."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not us partner lead","explanation":"PRC cultural supply and language interest are growing quickly; U.S. attraction is partly English utility, market size, and independent production rather than controllable statecraft; current U.S. reputation has weakened."},{"label":"Why not contested","explanation":"Multiple independent measures at or beyond exposure—arts and entertainment reputation, international study, language behavior, and destination preference—converge on a continuing U.S. advantage rather than mere PRC data absence."},{"label":"Why not prc centered edge or lead","explanation":"PRC cultural-export, game, film, travel, and language growth is substantial, but admitted evidence rarely follows exposure into sustained affinity, preference, or behavior across regions."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A20","assessment":"Decisive for attribution: independent U.S. culture, universities, entertainment firms, and English are not state-directed instruments."},{"id":"II-A21","assessment":"Strong: study, work, travel, and language choices reflect price, visas, safety, labor markets, capacity, and utility as well as affinity."},{"id":"II-A22","assessment":"Strong: global and regional indices use proprietary or expert weights and mix cultural inputs with outcomes."},{"id":"II-A23","assessment":"Strong: PRC growth may be undercounted because current independent downstream surveys lag fast-moving cultural products."}],"sensitivity":{"down_to_contested":"Move to Contested if recent PRC cultural growth produces sustained affinity and revealed preference across multiple regions or if U.S. study, language, and entertainment attraction materially declines.","up_to_us_partner_lead":"Requires causal, longitudinal evidence that cultural contact produces durable affinity and consequential choices across regions after cost and access controls.","to_prc_centered_edge":"Requires broad, independently measured reversal in contact-to-affinity and revealed preference, not export volume alone.","current_call_robust_to":["Removing composite soft-power scores","Treating English utility as a confounder","Attributing independent culture separately from government capacity"]},"source_ids":["II-S005","II-S006","II-S007","II-S008","II-S009","II-S021","II-S027","II-S028","II-S029","II-S030","II-S031","II-S032","II-S033","II-S036","II-S037","II-S038","II-S039","II-S040","II-S041","II-S042","II-S043","II-S044","II-S045","II-S047","II-S048"],"metric_ids":["II-M21","II-M22","II-M23","II-M24"],"case_ids":["II-C07","II-C08","II-C09","II-C10","II-C14","II-C15"],"observation_ids":["II-O031","II-O032","II-O033","II-O034","II-O035","II-O036"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d06","institutional_family":["AidData","Brand Finance","Duolingo","IIE Open Doors","ISEAS","Lowy Institute","OECD","PRC Ministry of Education","PRC government","PRC party-state","U.S. Department of State","U.S. Department of State ECA","UNESCO","WIPO"]},{"id":"II-D07","number":7,"slug":"influence-conversion","title":"Influence Conversion","position":null,"position_label":"Insufficient comparative basis","axis_label":"Insufficient comparative basis","axis_position":null,"tone":"unscored","is_scored":false,"confidence":"Not assessed","fact_confidence":"High","comparative_confidence":"Not assessed","comparative_observability":"not assessed","evidence_role":"split_or_inconclusive","comparative_mechanism":"","decision_rule":"Influence conversion requires an objective declared before exposure, a baseline, observed attitude, decision, or behavioral change, a plausible counterfactual, verified source exposure, rival-cause tests, and a persistence checkpoint. Activity, reach, country favorability, agreements, policy coincidence, likes, and shares cannot substitute for attribution.","judgment":"The category is explicitly unscored. Rare high-quality studies show that both systems can change short-run attitudes: representative CGTN messages shifted political-economic model preferences in a 19-country experiment; positive PRC public-diplomacy messages produced modest gains in India while combative messages failed; and U.S. embassy democracy messages could improve attitudes inside China under specified conditions. AidData finds associations between PRC content-sharing and leadership approval but no systematic relationship with UN General Assembly voting. These studies establish conditional attitude effects and a serious causal research base, not a representative comparison of consequential decisions, behavior, and persistence. Neither system has a public matched portfolio that clears the full conversion contract.","decisive_reason":"Both systems can move short-run attitudes in selected experiments; neither has a matched natural-exposure portfolio of consequential decisions, behavior, and persistence.","findings":[{"label":"Short-run attitude conversion","finding":"Contested","basis":"Both systems have affirmative experimental evidence under selected messages, audiences, and contexts.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Low"},{"label":"Decision and behavioral conversion","finding":"Insufficient comparative basis","basis":"No matched portfolio connects natural exposure to consequential choices after rival-cause controls.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Not assessed"},{"label":"Persistence","finding":"Insufficient comparative basis","basis":"Most causal studies measure immediate or short-horizon attitudes rather than effects surviving time, cost, or countermessage.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Not assessed"}],"counterevidence":["CGTN treatments outperformed sampled U.S. government messages in a preregistered 19-country experiment.","Positive PRC messaging produced modest attitude gains in India while negative messaging backfired.","U.S. embassy messaging produced favorable attitude effects inside China under specified conditions.","PRC content-sharing partnerships were associated with approval changes in East Asia and Pacific.","The content-sharing study found no systematic UN General Assembly voting alignment.","No admitted study tracks natural exposure through consequential behavior and persistence on matched terms."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not contested","explanation":"The decisive category is conversion into decisions, behavior, and persistence, not attitude treatment effects alone. Positive evidence for both systems does not reach the required stage."},{"label":"Why not prc centered edge or lead","explanation":"PRC experiments and approval associations do not establish natural-exposure behavioral conversion; the admitted UN-vote test found no systematic relationship."},{"label":"Why not us partner edge or lead","explanation":"A U.S. messaging experiment and broad cultural/reputation assets do not establish a matched behavioral conversion advantage."},{"label":"Publication boundary","explanation":"Publish only as an explicit unscored ruling and display the attitude-versus-behavior boundary prominently."},{"label":"What would permit a position","explanation":"A preregistered matched portfolio with natural exposure, consequential decisions or behavior, rival-cause controls, and persistence."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A24","assessment":"Decisive: material incentives, policy performance, coercion, identity, social networks, and preexisting preferences may cause the observed choice rather than information exposure."},{"id":"II-A25","assessment":"Strong: forced survey exposure overstates natural reach and attention."},{"id":"II-A26","assessment":"Strong: selected messages and countries may not represent either system's campaign portfolio."},{"id":"II-A27","assessment":"Strong: publication favors measurable positive effects while failed, stopped, and classified campaigns remain missing."}],"sensitivity":{"to_prc_centered_edge":"Requires repeated matched natural-exposure evidence linking PRC information to consequential decisions or behavior with persistent effects and stronger results than U.S. comparators.","to_us_partner_edge":"Requires the same evidence for U.S./partner efforts, with independent ecosystem and policy effects separately attributed.","to_contested":"Requires positive matched decision or behavioral evidence for both systems even if effects differ by issue or region.","does_not_move_with":["Additional followers or impressions","Country favorability alone","More survey-treatment attitude effects without behavior","Policy outcomes without exposure attribution"]},"source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S038","II-S046","II-S047","II-S048","II-S049","II-S050","II-S051"],"metric_ids":["II-M25","II-M26","II-M27","II-M28"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C05","II-C13","II-C28"],"observation_ids":["II-O037","II-O038","II-O039","II-O040","II-O041","II-O042"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d07","institutional_family":["Academic research team","AidData","Gallup World Poll","ISEAS","Pew Research Center"]},{"id":"II-D08","number":8,"slug":"counter-influence","title":"Counter-Influence","position":"Contested","position_label":"Contested","axis_label":"Contested","axis_position":50,"tone":"contested","is_scored":true,"confidence":"Low","fact_confidence":"High","comparative_confidence":"Low","comparative_observability":"limited","evidence_role":"split_or_inconclusive","comparative_mechanism":"","decision_rule":"Counter-influence requires accurate and timely detection and attribution, causal reduction in human exposure or false belief, transparent false-positive and rights-cost accounting, and restoration of trusted information function. Takedown totals, blocking, censorship, labels, or adversary failure cannot decide the category without defender contribution and harm controls.","judgment":"The category is Contested. The U.S.-anchored commercial, research, media, civil-society, and government ecosystem repeatedly attributes and disrupts state-linked operations with public evidence. Google, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI reporting provides strong positive detection evidence, and many disclosed PRC-linked campaigns achieved little organic attention. But platform visibility is proprietary and selected, and low attacker engagement cannot be assigned to the defender without a counterfactual. PRC access control can deny foreign messaging at scale, yet severe censorship, press-freedom, false-positive, feedback, and legitimacy costs prevent treating blocking as information integrity. No common attack set gives both systems equal ground truth, exposure, misses, false positives, rights costs, and recovery, so neither edge is defensible.","decisive_reason":"Transparent distributed detection and centralized access denial are offsetting strengths with radically different integrity costs; no common attack set decides the outcome.","findings":[{"label":"Transparent detection and attribution","finding":"U.S. / partner edge","basis":"Multiple autonomous platforms and researchers publish recurring attributions and disruptions.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Moderate"},{"label":"Access denial and suppression","finding":"PRC-centered edge","basis":"The PRC can deny foreign content access at national scale, but this is not automatically an integrity advantage.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Moderate"},{"label":"Exposure reduction, rights cost, and recovery","finding":"Insufficient comparative basis","basis":"No common dataset measures defender-caused reduction, false positives, protected speech, belief correction, and recovery.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Not assessed"}],"counterevidence":["Google reported more than 175,000 lifetime DRAGONBRIDGE channel disruptions and extremely low organic engagement.","Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI independently report recurring detection and attribution of state-linked activity.","Detected operations are selected and platform-specific; undetected campaigns and offline channels are missing.","PRC blocking limits access to foreign state media and other external content at national scale.","Freedom House and RSF document severe PRC information-access and press-freedom costs.","U.S. press-freedom decline, polarization, and platform opacity are serious counterevidence to an uncomplicated open-system lead."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not us partner edge or lead","explanation":"Public attributions and takedowns do not measure misses, causal exposure reduction, belief correction, platform incentives, or rights costs; some campaigns were already ineffective."},{"label":"Why not prc centered edge or lead","explanation":"National blocking and censorship can suppress truthful information, impede learning, and impose massive integrity costs; detection accuracy and recovery are opaque."},{"label":"Why contested not unscored","explanation":"Both systems demonstrate positive, consequential capacity in distinct components—transparent distributed detection versus centralized access denial—even though the full outcome contract remains unmatched."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A28","assessment":"Decisive: disclosed campaigns may fail because attackers are weak, not because defenders are effective."},{"id":"II-A29","assessment":"Strong: U.S.-based platforms report what they can see and may share institutional incentives, so multiple reports are not fully independent."},{"id":"II-A30","assessment":"Strong: PRC censorship can produce a low observed penetration rate while simultaneously degrading truth, trust, and policy feedback."},{"id":"II-A31","assessment":"Strong: different legal and normative objectives make takedown, blocking, and integrity measures non-equivalent."}],"sensitivity":{"to_us_partner_edge":"Requires a common attack set showing faster accurate detection, greater causal exposure reduction and recovery, fewer false positives, and lower rights costs.","to_prc_centered_edge":"Requires the same common-denominator evidence and proof that access control improves belief accuracy and resilience rather than merely suppressing content.","to_insufficient_comparative_basis":"Use unscored if transparent detection and centralized denial are judged too different to constitute positive comparative evidence within one capability.","does_not_move_with":["More account removals","More blocked domains","Adversary content that already had no audience","Unverified government attribution"]},"source_ids":["II-S004","II-S018","II-S019","II-S024","II-S052","II-S053","II-S054","II-S055","II-S056","II-S057","II-S058","II-S059","II-S060","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063","II-S068"],"metric_ids":["II-M29","II-M30","II-M31","II-M32"],"case_ids":["II-C16","II-C17","II-C18","II-C19","II-C30"],"observation_ids":["II-O043","II-O044","II-O045","II-O046","II-O047","II-O048"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d08","institutional_family":["Associated Press","Freedom House","Google","Meta","Microsoft","NATO","OpenAI","PRC party-state","RSF","U.S. Department of Defense","U.S. Department of State"]},{"id":"II-D09","number":9,"slug":"learning-adaptation","title":"Learning & Adaptation","position":null,"position_label":"Insufficient comparative basis","axis_label":"Insufficient comparative basis","axis_position":null,"tone":"unscored","is_scored":false,"confidence":"Not assessed","fact_confidence":"High","comparative_confidence":"Not assessed","comparative_observability":"not assessed","evidence_role":"split_or_inconclusive","comparative_mechanism":"","decision_rule":"Learning receives credit only when valid outcome evidence causes a documented change to objectives, design, messenger, content, channel, targeting, or a stop decision, and a comparable repeated cycle improves. Evaluation offices, dashboards, reports, AI adoption, or claimed innovation are inputs only; failure retention across turnover is part of the result.","judgment":"The category is explicitly unscored. The U.S. system discloses substantially more evaluation machinery, performance reporting, external program evaluations, oversight findings, and failures. PRC doctrine repeatedly calls for audience tailoring, feedback, localization, and improved communication effectiveness, but public negative findings, stop decisions, and repeated-cycle effect estimates are sparse. The transparency difference is itself important to institutional integrity, yet it cannot establish a comparative learning advantage: public U.S. records rarely complete the chain from finding to changed design to better comparable downstream result, while PRC opacity cannot be coded as nonlearning. No matched repeated-cycle portfolio exists.","decisive_reason":"U.S. transparency shows more measurement machinery and more visible failures; neither system publicly demonstrates a matched loop from evidence through redesign to repeated improvement.","findings":[{"label":"Measurement architecture and transparency","finding":"U.S. / partner edge","basis":"U.S. manuals, agency reports, evaluations, and independent oversight reveal a broader auditable public architecture.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Moderate"},{"label":"Evidence-to-design change","finding":"Insufficient comparative basis","basis":"Representative design-change records are unavailable for both systems.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Not assessed"},{"label":"Repeated-cycle improvement and failure retention","finding":"Insufficient comparative basis","basis":"No matched effect-size improvement or retained-failure portfolio exists.","limitation":"Comparative confidence: Not assessed"}],"counterevidence":["State and USAGM guidance contains explicit monitoring, evaluation, impact, agility, and data-validation frameworks.","ECA publishes learning agendas and externally conducted program evaluations.","USAGM reports multi-year performance trends and measurement limitations.","GAO and OIG identify recurring coordination, measurement, control, and data-age weaknesses.","PRC doctrine repeatedly demands audience-specific and effectiveness-oriented international communication.","Public PRC sources rarely disclose failed campaigns, negative evaluations, or stop decisions."],"why_not":[{"label":"Why not contested","explanation":"The decisive stages—documented adjustment and better repeated result—lack positive comparable evidence for both systems."},{"label":"Why not us partner edge or lead","explanation":"Greater transparency and more evaluation do not show that findings are used or that comparable outcomes improve; recurring GAO and OIG weaknesses are material."},{"label":"Why not prc centered edge or lead","explanation":"Central direction, localization, and rapid output may reflect adaptation, but doctrine and selected successes do not reveal negative findings, design changes, or repeated gains."},{"label":"Publication boundary","explanation":"Publish only as an explicit unscored ruling; describe transparency separately and never treat opacity as failure or evaluation volume as learning."},{"label":"What would permit a position","explanation":"A matched repeated-cycle portfolio with documented findings, adjustments, failures, and effect-size change."}],"rival_explanations":[{"id":"II-A32","assessment":"Decisive: openness produces an observability penalty for the U.S. and a success-selection advantage for the PRC."},{"id":"II-A33","assessment":"Strong: operational learning may be classified, contractor-held, proprietary, or politically sensitive in both systems."},{"id":"II-A34","assessment":"Strong: apparent improvement may result from an easier audience, more resources, policy change, or platform growth rather than learning."},{"id":"II-A35","assessment":"Strong: organizational disruption and leadership turnover can destroy institutional memory independently of analytical quality."}],"sensitivity":{"to_us_partner_edge":"Requires a representative portfolio tracing findings to design changes and improved repeated results, with failures and nulls included, plus a matched or bounded PRC comparator.","to_prc_centered_edge":"Requires comparable, independently reviewable PRC evidence of negative findings, adjustment, repeated gains, and failure retention.","to_contested":"Requires positive matched repeated-cycle evidence for both systems.","does_not_move_with":["More evaluations","More dashboards","An evaluation office","AI adoption","Claimed flexibility without repeated results"]},"source_ids":["II-S002","II-S006","II-S007","II-S008","II-S009","II-S010","II-S011","II-S013","II-S014","II-S016","II-S017","II-S020","II-S023"],"metric_ids":["II-M33","II-M34","II-M35","II-M36"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C02","II-C11","II-C14","II-C27"],"observation_ids":["II-O049","II-O050","II-O051","II-O052","II-O053","II-O054"],"page_url":"/information-influence#ii-d09","institutional_family":["GAO","PRC party-state","State OIG and USAGM","U.S. Department of State","U.S. Department of State ECA","USAGM"]}],"case_portfolio":[{"case_id":"II-C01","title":"U.S. public-diplomacy country planning and audience research","period":"current manuals; trailing five-year application","anchor_system":"U.S.-anchored","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Foreign publics and intermediaries","primary_capability_ids":["II-D01","II-D02","II-D09"],"causal_stages":["availability"],"case_role":"process_capacity_case","selection_reason":"Tests whether formal research and evaluation rules produce valid insight and learning rather than paperwork.","strongest_counterclaim":"Public manuals show intended process but not accuracy, compliance, failed forecasts, or repeated improvement.","source_ids":["II-S001","II-S002","II-S016","II-S017"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C02"],"evidence_gaps":"Matched campaign forecasts, research use records, and downstream effect improvements."},{"case_id":"II-C02","title":"PRC international-communication localization architecture","period":"2020-2026","anchor_system":"PRC-centered","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Foreign publics and intermediaries","primary_capability_ids":["II-D01","II-D02","II-D03","II-D09"],"causal_stages":["availability"],"case_role":"process_capacity_case","selection_reason":"Tests central audience differentiation, localization, and feedback doctrine.","strongest_counterclaim":"Doctrine and localized output do not reveal insight accuracy or use of negative findings.","source_ids":["II-S020","II-S022","II-S023","II-S025","II-S026","II-S052"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C01"],"evidence_gaps":"Internal research methods, forecast errors, failed campaigns, and closed-loop outcomes."},{"case_id":"II-C03","title":"CGTN performance-narrative persuasion experiment","period":"2022-2024 publication","anchor_system":"PRC-centered","region":"Nineteen-country sample","audience_or_issue":"Political and economic model preference","primary_capability_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D05","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["comprehension","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"causal_affirmative_prc","selection_reason":"Provides rare preregistered comparative causal evidence for representative state-media messages.","strongest_counterclaim":"Forced experimental exposure, low real-world viewership, short horizon, and attitude outcomes limit external and behavioral validity.","source_ids":["II-S049"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C04","II-C05"],"evidence_gaps":"Natural exposure, source-recognition, durability, and behavioral follow-up."},{"case_id":"II-C04","title":"China wolf-warrior versus aid-and-friendship messages after border conflict","period":"2020-2024 publication","anchor_system":"PRC-centered","region":"India","audience_or_issue":"Public attitudes after security shock","primary_capability_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D05","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["comprehension","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"causal_boundary_prc","selection_reason":"Tests positive and negative narrative styles under a hostile issue environment.","strongest_counterclaim":"A one-country survey experiment cannot establish system-wide effectiveness or persistent behavior.","source_ids":["II-S050"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C03","II-C05"],"evidence_gaps":"Repeated real-world exposure, source recognition, longer follow-up, and behavioral endpoints."},{"case_id":"II-C05","title":"U.S. embassy democracy messaging inside China","period":"contemporary experiment published 2024","anchor_system":"U.S.-anchored","region":"PRC","audience_or_issue":"Authoritarian-society audiences","primary_capability_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D05","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["comprehension","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"causal_affirmative_us","selection_reason":"Tests whether explicit U.S. values messaging can repair threatened attitudes under censorship.","strongest_counterclaim":"Sensitive survey conditions and treatment exposure may not generalize to natural consumption or consequential behavior.","source_ids":["II-S051"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04"],"evidence_gaps":"Natural reach, durability, heterogeneous risk, and behavior."},{"case_id":"II-C06","title":"Current U.S. and PRC global reputation reversal","period":"2024-2026","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"National and leadership reputation","primary_capability_ids":["II-D02","II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"current_comparative_context","selection_reason":"Captures the sharp current operating environment using two broad independent survey families.","strongest_counterclaim":"The shift is primarily policy- and leader-sensitive and cannot be assigned to communication capacity.","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S036","II-S037"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C07","II-C08"],"evidence_gaps":"Source-specific trust, exposure pathways, policy controls, and persistence beyond current leaders."},{"case_id":"II-C07","title":"Southeast Asian influence, alignment, and destination preference","period":"2026","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Southeast Asia","audience_or_issue":"Regional opinion leaders","primary_capability_ids":["II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior"],"case_role":"regional_mixed_case","selection_reason":"Separates perceived economic/political influence and hypothetical alignment from revealed attraction to live, work, or travel.","strongest_counterclaim":"Opinion-leader sampling and hypothetical choices are not representative public behavior; Japan and regional actors dominate some cultural choices.","source_ids":["II-S038","II-S039","II-S040"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C06","II-C10"],"evidence_gaps":"Representative public panels, actual destination behavior, source-specific media use, and causal exposure."},{"case_id":"II-C08","title":"Global cultural attraction and reputation gap","period":"2025-2026","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Global and Indo-Pacific","audience_or_issue":"Culture, entertainment, education, language, and reputation","primary_capability_ids":["II-D05","II-D06"],"causal_stages":["attention","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"comparative_cultural_profile","selection_reason":"Triangulates independent indices, survey reputation, study, and language choices without adopting a composite.","strongest_counterclaim":"English utility, market scale, visa policy, platform sample, and proprietary weights explain part of the apparent U.S. advantage.","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S036","II-S037","II-S039","II-S040","II-S041","II-S042","II-S043"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C09","II-C10"],"evidence_gaps":"Matched contact-to-affinity panels and causal comparison of cultural mechanisms."},{"case_id":"II-C09","title":"PRC cultural export and language-growth surge","period":"2024-2026","anchor_system":"PRC-centered","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Games, film, audiovisual, language, travel, and cultural products","primary_capability_ids":["II-D03","II-D06"],"causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"case_role":"prc_growth_case","selection_reason":"Tests whether rapidly expanding cultural supply and contact are narrowing the attraction gap.","strongest_counterclaim":"Most evidence is actor-reported output or platform exposure; downstream affinity and behavior are not measured.","source_ids":["II-S027","II-S028","II-S029","II-S030","II-S031","II-S032","II-S033","II-S042","II-S044","II-S045"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C08","II-C10"],"evidence_gaps":"Independent consumption, source recognition, affinity change, and persistence by region."},{"case_id":"II-C10","title":"U.S. education, language, and cultural revealed preference","period":"2024-2026","anchor_system":"U.S.-anchored with autonomous ecosystem","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Study, language, arts, entertainment, and destination choices","primary_capability_ids":["II-D06"],"causal_stages":["attention","affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior"],"case_role":"us_cultural_affirmative","selection_reason":"Tests durable attraction through multiple observed choices rather than export volume alone.","strongest_counterclaim":"English is a global utility and independent culture is not government-taskable; study and travel choices depend on cost, visas, and capacity.","source_ids":["II-S036","II-S037","II-S039","II-S041","II-S042","II-S043","II-S044","II-S045"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C08","II-C09"],"evidence_gaps":"Matched PRC destination data, choice-model controls, longitudinal affinity, and later political spillover."},{"case_id":"II-C11","title":"USAGM measured global weekly audience","period":"FY2020-FY2024","anchor_system":"U.S.-anchored state-funded independent media","region":"Global excluding major denied-market gaps","audience_or_issue":"International news audiences","primary_capability_ids":["II-D01","II-D03","II-D04","II-D05","II-D09"],"causal_stages":["attention","credibility"],"case_role":"us_distribution_affirmative","selection_reason":"Provides a documented, unduplicated, survey-based reach series and explicit measurement limitations.","strongest_counterclaim":"Rolling survey years, China exclusion, unreportable RFA audiences, actor authorship, and 2025-26 institutional disruption weaken current comparability.","source_ids":["II-S010","II-S011","II-S012","II-S013","II-S014"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C12","II-C13"],"evidence_gaps":"Independent post-disruption consumption, matched PRC audience surveys, and source-specific trust."},{"case_id":"II-C12","title":"CGTN and Xinhua claimed global distribution network","period":"2024-2026","anchor_system":"PRC-centered state media","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"International news audiences and media partners","primary_capability_ids":["II-D03","II-D04"],"causal_stages":["availability"],"case_role":"prc_distribution_input","selection_reason":"Establishes extensive state-controlled production, bureaus, languages, and potential carriage.","strongest_counterclaim":"Countries, bureaus, followers, and carriage are not unduplicated human consumption; comparable independent reach is absent.","source_ids":["II-S025","II-S026","II-S030","II-S052"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C11","II-C13"],"evidence_gaps":"Independent market-level audience surveys, duplicate/bot controls, consumption duration, and priority-audience penetration."},{"case_id":"II-C13","title":"PRC media content-sharing partnerships in East Asia and Pacific","period":"2000-2018 evidence; published 2021","anchor_system":"PRC-centered","region":"East Asia and Pacific","audience_or_issue":"Local media audiences and governments","primary_capability_ids":["II-D03","II-D04","II-D05","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["attention","affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior"],"case_role":"prc_distribution_effect_case","selection_reason":"Links a distribution mechanism to leadership-approval associations and tests UN-vote conversion.","strongest_counterclaim":"Observational association may reflect selection or broader material ties; no systematic UN-vote alignment was found.","source_ids":["II-S046","II-S047","II-S048"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C11","II-C14"],"evidence_gaps":"Current content-sharing universe, editorial disclosure, individual exposure, causal design, and broader behavior."},{"case_id":"II-C14","title":"American Spaces, exchanges, and alumni networks","period":"2013-2026 with older evaluations","anchor_system":"U.S.-anchored","region":"Global with regional programs","audience_or_issue":"Students, professionals, youth, and local communities","primary_capability_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D06","II-D07","II-D09"],"causal_stages":["attention","comprehension","credibility","affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior","persistence"],"case_role":"us_relationship_affirmative","selection_reason":"Tests whether recurring cultural and educational contact creates trust, durable networks, and participant action.","strongest_counterclaim":"Selection, self-report, program attrition, and absence of matched PRC comparison make national conversion uncertain.","source_ids":["II-S005","II-S006","II-S007","II-S008","II-S009"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C15"],"evidence_gaps":"Matched participant/nonparticipant designs, independent follow-up, actual decisions, and common costs."},{"case_id":"II-C15","title":"PRC language, media, education, and people-to-people network","period":"2015-2026","anchor_system":"PRC-centered","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Students, learners, media partners, visitors, and cultural consumers","primary_capability_ids":["II-D04","II-D06","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["availability","attention","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"prc_relationship_input","selection_reason":"Tests the scale and recent growth of PRC cultural-contact architecture.","strongest_counterclaim":"Most evidence establishes availability or participation; political controversy, selection, and no common outcome measure prevent conversion claims.","source_ids":["II-S027","II-S028","II-S029","II-S047","II-S048"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C14"],"evidence_gaps":"Independent longitudinal affinity, revealed choices, attrition, and matched program evaluation."},{"case_id":"II-C16","title":"DRAGONBRIDGE high-volume low-engagement campaigns","period":"2019-2025","anchor_system":"PRC-linked covert/deceptive","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Social platform audiences","primary_capability_ids":["II-D03","II-D04","II-D08"],"causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"case_role":"prc_agility_counterexample","selection_reason":"Tests whether scale and multilingual AI-assisted content produce organic attention.","strongest_counterclaim":"Google sees only its services and detected campaigns; other channels or objectives may perform differently.","source_ids":["II-S058","II-S059","II-S060","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C17","II-C18"],"evidence_gaps":"Cross-platform deduplicated exposure, target objectives, undetected denominator, and belief effects."},{"case_id":"II-C17","title":"U.S. platform and civil-society detection ecosystem","period":"2022-2026","anchor_system":"U.S.-anchored independent and commercial ecosystem","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Covert influence targets","primary_capability_ids":["II-D08"],"causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"case_role":"us_counter_influence_affirmative","selection_reason":"Shows repeated public attribution and disruption by large platforms and research ecosystems.","strongest_counterclaim":"Platforms act autonomously, visibility is proprietary, false positives and rights costs are incompletely reported, and takedowns may remove content nobody saw.","source_ids":["II-S058","II-S059","II-S060","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C16","II-C18"],"evidence_gaps":"Common attack set, misses, false positives, exposure reduction, belief recovery, and rights-cost audit."},{"case_id":"II-C18","title":"PRC domestic blocking and narrative control","period":"2020-2026","anchor_system":"PRC-centered","region":"PRC domestic information environment","audience_or_issue":"Domestic access as external-influence constraint and counter-influence boundary","primary_capability_ids":["II-D04","II-D08"],"causal_stages":["availability"],"case_role":"integrity_boundary_case","selection_reason":"Tests access denial and the temptation to count censorship as defensive success.","strongest_counterclaim":"Blocking may reduce hostile penetration but can also destroy integrity, suppress truth, impede feedback, and export legitimacy costs.","source_ids":["II-S024","II-S054","II-S056"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C17","II-C19"],"evidence_gaps":"Common threat set, false positives, population exposure, belief accuracy, feedback loss, and rights-cost measures."},{"case_id":"II-C19","title":"U.S. open information ecosystem under trust and institutional strain","period":"2024-2026","anchor_system":"U.S.-anchored independent ecosystem","region":"United States with foreign spillover","audience_or_issue":"Domestic source environment as foreign-credibility input","primary_capability_ids":["II-D05","II-D08"],"causal_stages":["credibility"],"case_role":"us_integrity_counterevidence","selection_reason":"Tests whether openness, correction, and independent journalism remain foreign-credibility assets under falling trust and press-freedom concerns.","strongest_counterclaim":"Domestic trust and press freedom do not directly measure foreign audience reliance, while current policy choices may dominate views.","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S055","II-S057","II-S064"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C18"],"evidence_gaps":"Foreign source-specific panels, crisis reliance, correction performance, and policy controls."},{"case_id":"II-C20","title":"Narrative-policy coherence during current U.S. international retrenchment","period":"2025-2026","anchor_system":"U.S.-anchored","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Partners and foreign publics","primary_capability_ids":["II-D02","II-D05","II-D09"],"causal_stages":["credibility"],"case_role":"us_narrative_counterevidence","selection_reason":"Tests alignment between longstanding partnership/freedom narratives and visible aid, media, and institutional policy changes.","strongest_counterclaim":"A democratically chosen policy change can be coherent with a new narrative, and external disapproval does not prove communication failure.","source_ids":["II-S003","II-S013","II-S014","II-S015","II-S034","II-S035","II-S067"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C21"],"evidence_gaps":"Event-coded official claims, implemented conduct, repair, source trust, and post-policy stabilization."},{"case_id":"II-C21","title":"PRC centralized narrative-policy alignment under external shocks","period":"2020-2026","anchor_system":"PRC-centered","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Foreign publics and intermediaries","primary_capability_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D05"],"causal_stages":["comprehension","credibility"],"case_role":"prc_narrative_affirmative","selection_reason":"Tests whether centralized doctrine, localization, and consistent development/performance themes produce a current advantage in alignment.","strongest_counterclaim":"Opaque contradiction handling, censorship, coercive conduct, local backlash, and wolf-warrior failures can reduce credibility despite formal coordination.","source_ids":["II-S020","II-S021","II-S022","II-S023","II-S024","II-S034","II-S035","II-S049","II-S050","II-S052"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C20"],"evidence_gaps":"Matched contradiction coding across crises, local source trust, correction records, and independent implementation checks."},{"case_id":"II-C22","title":"Information influence in Africa","period":"2024-2026 context","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Africa","audience_or_issue":"Publics, media, elites, and partner institutions","primary_capability_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["attention","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"regional_sensitivity_case","selection_reason":"Prevents global averages from erasing African agency and distinct reliability, development, and representation concerns.","strongest_counterclaim":"Sparse source-specific exposure and causal data make it easy to misattribute material-development preferences to information.","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S046","II-S047","II-S065"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C23","II-C24","II-C25"],"evidence_gaps":"Country-level media use, source trust, cultural contact, and causal conversion."},{"case_id":"II-C23","title":"Information influence in the Middle East and North Africa","period":"2023-2026 context","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Middle East and North Africa","audience_or_issue":"Publics, elites, media, and crisis audiences","primary_capability_ids":["II-D02","II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"regional_sensitivity_case","selection_reason":"Captures policy-sensitive U.S. reputation, PRC economic perceptions, and uneven source trust.","strongest_counterclaim":"War, aid, trade, and regime relations dominate many attitudes; information exposure is rarely isolated.","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S064","II-S066","II-S067"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C22","II-C24","II-C25"],"evidence_gaps":"Source-specific use, matched country panels, pre/post policy controls, and behavioral outcomes."},{"case_id":"II-C24","title":"Information influence in Europe","period":"2024-2026 context","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Europe","audience_or_issue":"Publics, media, and partners","primary_capability_ids":["II-D02","II-D05","II-D06","II-D08"],"causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"regional_sensitivity_case","selection_reason":"Tests current U.S. reputation decline against persistent cultural and institutional ties and PRC messaging reach.","strongest_counterclaim":"Current leader and alliance-policy conflict may swamp system capability; regional countries differ sharply.","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S036","II-S058","II-S061","II-S064"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C22","II-C23","II-C25"],"evidence_gaps":"Source trust, actual consumption, cultural choices, and post-administration persistence."},{"case_id":"II-C25","title":"Information influence in Latin America and the Caribbean","period":"2024-2026 context","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Latin America and the Caribbean","audience_or_issue":"Publics, media, and elites","primary_capability_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"],"causal_stages":["attention","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"case_role":"regional_sensitivity_case","selection_reason":"Tests a region where reliability perceptions are increasingly split and neither actor has uniform advantage.","strongest_counterclaim":"Country-specific history, migration, trade, ideology, and U.S. proximity are powerful noninformational causes.","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S036","II-S047"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C22","II-C23","II-C24"],"evidence_gaps":"Country panels, source-specific media use, contact measures, and policy controls."},{"case_id":"II-C26","title":"Content automation and AI-enabled localization","period":"2024-2026","anchor_system":"Both systems; observed PRC-linked clusters","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Platform audiences","primary_capability_ids":["II-D03","II-D08"],"causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"case_role":"emerging_mechanism_case","selection_reason":"Tests whether generative AI changes speed and localization without assuming it changes persuasion.","strongest_counterclaim":"Detected AI use often produces more low-engagement content; high-quality undisclosed use and nonplatform effects remain unknown.","source_ids":["II-S058","II-S059","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063","II-S068"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C16"],"evidence_gaps":"Matched latency, localization quality, human uptake, detection misses, and downstream effects."},{"case_id":"II-C27","title":"Learning architecture versus demonstrated repeated improvement","period":"2007-2026","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Institutional measurement and adaptation","primary_capability_ids":["II-D01","II-D09"],"causal_stages":["availability","decision_or_behavior","persistence"],"case_role":"comparability_gate","selection_reason":"Tests whether either system publicly demonstrates a closed loop from measured effect to a better repeated result.","strongest_counterclaim":"Sensitive operations may learn effectively without public disclosure; open U.S. failures create an observability penalty.","source_ids":["II-S002","II-S007","II-S010","II-S011","II-S014","II-S016","II-S017","II-S020","II-S023"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C01","II-C02"],"evidence_gaps":"Matched repeated campaign cycles, negative findings, documented changes, and effect-size improvement."},{"case_id":"II-C28","title":"Influence conversion evidence portfolio","period":"2000-2026","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"Attitude, decision, behavior, and persistence","primary_capability_ids":["II-D07"],"causal_stages":["affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior","persistence"],"case_role":"comparability_gate","selection_reason":"Aggregates the rare causal and observational cases to test whether an overall behavioral conversion position is defensible.","strongest_counterclaim":"Experiments show short-run attitudes; observational studies cannot isolate causes; policy behavior has no matched portfolio.","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S038","II-S046","II-S049","II-S050","II-S051"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C05","II-C13"],"evidence_gaps":"Preregistered objectives, natural exposure, decisions/behavior, rival-cause controls, and 12+ month persistence."},{"case_id":"II-C29","title":"Distribution comparison after U.S. institutional disruption","period":"2025-2026","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Global","audience_or_issue":"International news audiences","primary_capability_ids":["II-D04"],"causal_stages":["attention"],"case_role":"current_position_stress_test","selection_reason":"Tests whether the pre-2025 measured U.S. reach edge survives institutional disruption against expanding PRC supply.","strongest_counterclaim":"Current independent matched consumption is unavailable; old U.S. reach and current PRC availability are mismatched.","source_ids":["II-S010","II-S012","II-S013","II-S014","II-S015","II-S025","II-S026","II-S030","II-S034","II-S035"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C11","II-C12"],"evidence_gaps":"Post-disruption audience surveys and matched PRC unduplicated consumption by market."},{"case_id":"II-C30","title":"Counter-influence common-denominator audit","period":"2022-2026","anchor_system":"Both systems","region":"Global and domestic information environments","audience_or_issue":"Detected manipulation and protected expression","primary_capability_ids":["II-D08"],"causal_stages":["availability","attention","credibility","persistence"],"case_role":"comparability_gate","selection_reason":"Tests detection, exposure reduction, errors, rights cost, and recovery on one common attack set.","strongest_counterclaim":"No public dataset gives both systems equal visibility, ground truth, false positives, audience exposure, and recovery.","source_ids":["II-S004","II-S018","II-S019","II-S024","II-S054","II-S055","II-S056","II-S057","II-S058","II-S059","II-S060","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063"],"matched_case_ids":["II-C16","II-C17","II-C18","II-C19"],"evidence_gaps":"Seeded common attacks, independent adjudication, misses, false positives, belief effects, rights costs, and recovery."}],"metric_contracts":[{"metric_id":"II-M01","capability_id":"II-D01","title":"Audience insight accuracy","decision_rule":"Credit only when a pre-action audience estimate predicts a later measured response within a declared tolerance.","required_unit":"pre-action estimate versus observed audience response","required_denominator":"all preregistered estimates in the sampled portfolio","decisive_stage":"comprehension","minimum_comparison":"Matched issue, audience, time, and response definition for both systems","mandatory_exclusions":"Retrospective claims; dashboards without forecasts; undisclosed failed estimates","confidence_boundary":"No position without comparable error distributions","category_ids":["II-D01"]},{"metric_id":"II-M02","capability_id":"II-D01","title":"Network-map validity","decision_rule":"Credit only when mapped intermediaries, narratives, or diffusion paths are independently observed and improve targeting or risk avoidance.","required_unit":"validated nodes, paths, and intervention changes","required_denominator":"all priority nodes or paths declared before action","decisive_stage":"attention","minimum_comparison":"Matched network problem and validation method","mandatory_exclusions":"Collection volume; surveillance access; centrality without real-world validation","confidence_boundary":"Low confidence if ground truth is actor controlled","category_ids":["II-D01"]},{"metric_id":"II-M03","capability_id":"II-D01","title":"Insight-to-plan use","decision_rule":"Credit when documented audience insight changes objectives, messenger, channel, content, or timing before execution.","required_unit":"validated planning change per completed research product","required_denominator":"all research products in sampled campaigns","decisive_stage":"availability","minimum_comparison":"Matched organizational records or independent case reconstruction","mandatory_exclusions":"Research commissioned but unused; undocumented post hoc adaptation","confidence_boundary":"No system edge from one-sided process evidence","category_ids":["II-D01"]},{"metric_id":"II-M04","capability_id":"II-D01","title":"Forecast-to-effect gain","decision_rule":"Credit only when an insight-led design outperforms a plausible baseline or control at a downstream stage.","required_unit":"effect-size gain versus baseline or control","required_denominator":"all comparable insight-led interventions","decisive_stage":"credibility","minimum_comparison":"Matched outcome, sample, and horizon","mandatory_exclusions":"Actor claims; unrelated policy success; exposure-only outcomes","confidence_boundary":"Decisive but presently unavailable publicly","category_ids":["II-D01"]},{"metric_id":"II-M05","capability_id":"II-D02","title":"Policy-message consistency","decision_rule":"Compare contradictions between declared narrative, implemented policy, and observed conduct across preselected consequential events.","required_unit":"coded contradiction or repair per event","required_denominator":"all preselected consequential events","decisive_stage":"credibility","minimum_comparison":"Same issue baskets, coding rules, and event horizon","mandatory_exclusions":"Slogan consistency; censorship; leader repetition","confidence_boundary":"Low confidence when policy performance drives the result","category_ids":["II-D02"]},{"metric_id":"II-M06","capability_id":"II-D02","title":"Cross-institution alignment","decision_rule":"Credit coherent division of labor when institutions communicate compatible policy purpose without requiring identical language.","required_unit":"aligned institutions per event","required_denominator":"all institutions assigned a communication role","decisive_stage":"comprehension","minimum_comparison":"Matched central, diplomatic, media, and partner actors","mandatory_exclusions":"Uniform wording alone; suppressed dissent; unauthorized ecosystem outputs","confidence_boundary":"Edge needs independent event coding","category_ids":["II-D02"]},{"metric_id":"II-M07","capability_id":"II-D02","title":"Narrative durability under shock","decision_rule":"Credit narratives that survive adverse events or are explicitly corrected without abandoning core policy logic.","required_unit":"retained or repaired narrative propositions","required_denominator":"all propositions tested by a preselected shock","decisive_stage":"credibility","minimum_comparison":"Matched shocks and post-shock window","mandatory_exclusions":"Unchallenged slogans; deletion of contradictions; audience ignorance","confidence_boundary":"One shock cannot establish system durability","category_ids":["II-D02"]},{"metric_id":"II-M08","capability_id":"II-D02","title":"Narrative persuasion","decision_rule":"Credit only experimentally or quasi-experimentally observed movement in intended interpretation or preference attributable to the narrative.","required_unit":"effect size on preregistered interpretation or preference","required_denominator":"all eligible treated and comparison respondents","decisive_stage":"affinity_or_preference","minimum_comparison":"Matched message families, audiences, and exposure","mandatory_exclusions":"General country favorability; policy popularity; self-reported campaign success","confidence_boundary":"Required to move from coordination to lead","category_ids":["II-D02"]},{"metric_id":"II-M09","capability_id":"II-D03","title":"Event-to-content time","decision_rule":"Measure elapsed time from verified event or decision to accurate, audience-ready content.","required_unit":"median and tail latency per eligible event","required_denominator":"all predeclared events requiring response","decisive_stage":"availability","minimum_comparison":"Matched event salience, language, format, and operating constraints","mandatory_exclusions":"Preproduced content; reposts; automated spam","confidence_boundary":"No edge without quality and uptake controls","category_ids":["II-D03"]},{"metric_id":"II-M10","capability_id":"II-D03","title":"Localization quality","decision_rule":"Credit linguistic, cultural, and issue fit validated by target-audience comprehension rather than source-side review.","required_unit":"validated localized item","required_denominator":"all sampled localized items","decisive_stage":"comprehension","minimum_comparison":"Matched languages and audience panels","mandatory_exclusions":"Language count; machine translation; domestic expert approval only","confidence_boundary":"Low confidence without independent target-audience testing","category_ids":["II-D03"]},{"metric_id":"II-M11","capability_id":"II-D03","title":"Correction performance","decision_rule":"Measure detection, transparent correction, and residual spread after material factual error.","required_unit":"time to correction and residual false-belief rate","required_denominator":"all material errors in sampled output","decisive_stage":"credibility","minimum_comparison":"Matched error severity, reach, and observation window","mandatory_exclusions":"Silent deletion; censorship; corrections never encountered","confidence_boundary":"Decisive for agility-quality tradeoff","category_ids":["II-D03"]},{"metric_id":"II-M12","capability_id":"II-D03","title":"Audience uptake under time pressure","decision_rule":"Credit timely content only when relevant audiences actually consume, comprehend, or use it during the decision window.","required_unit":"unduplicated priority-audience uptake","required_denominator":"all eligible priority audience members","decisive_stage":"attention","minimum_comparison":"Matched event window and source attribution","mandatory_exclusions":"Posts; impressions; followers; bot engagement","confidence_boundary":"Position remains low confidence without matched uptake","category_ids":["II-D03"]},{"metric_id":"II-M13","capability_id":"II-D04","title":"Unduplicated sustained consumption","decision_rule":"Measure actual weekly or monthly consumption among a declared priority audience with duplicate and bot controls.","required_unit":"unique human consumers","required_denominator":"eligible priority-audience population","decisive_stage":"attention","minimum_comparison":"Matched markets, recency, media, and survey method","mandatory_exclusions":"Potential availability; accounts; followers; impressions","confidence_boundary":"Actor surveys require independent method review","category_ids":["II-D04"]},{"metric_id":"II-M14","capability_id":"II-D04","title":"Priority-audience penetration","decision_rule":"Measure the share of the intended audience actually reached, not global totals.","required_unit":"weighted priority-audience consumers","required_denominator":"eligible priority audience","decisive_stage":"attention","minimum_comparison":"Same audience definition and sampling frame","mandatory_exclusions":"Total population; global followers; accidental exposure","confidence_boundary":"No global edge from unmatched regional totals","category_ids":["II-D04"]},{"metric_id":"II-M15","capability_id":"II-D04","title":"Intermediary distribution resilience","decision_rule":"Credit affiliate, messenger, platform, and circumvention pathways that retain consumption after blocking or platform change.","required_unit":"retained consumption after disruption","required_denominator":"pre-disruption consumers or eligible intermediaries","decisive_stage":"attention","minimum_comparison":"Matched disruption severity and recovery window","mandatory_exclusions":"Number of affiliates; tools distributed; blocked domains","confidence_boundary":"Lead requires repeated shocks across regions","category_ids":["II-D04"]},{"metric_id":"II-M16","capability_id":"II-D04","title":"Attention quality","decision_rule":"Distinguish repeated, voluntary, non-bot attention from autoplay, paid placement, coerced carriage, or accidental exposure.","required_unit":"qualified attention minutes or verified repeat use","required_denominator":"all measured exposures","decisive_stage":"attention","minimum_comparison":"Matched verification and platform rules","mandatory_exclusions":"Raw views; paid impressions; coordinated inauthentic engagement","confidence_boundary":"Low confidence when proprietary analytics are unaudited","category_ids":["II-D04"]},{"metric_id":"II-M17","capability_id":"II-D05","title":"Source-specific trust","decision_rule":"Measure trust in named media, diplomats, institutions, or messengers rather than general country favorability.","required_unit":"weighted trust share or scale score","required_denominator":"representative eligible audience","decisive_stage":"credibility","minimum_comparison":"Matched named sources, question order, and field period","mandatory_exclusions":"Leader approval; familiarity; national brand rank","confidence_boundary":"Required for directional credibility position","category_ids":["II-D05"]},{"metric_id":"II-M18","capability_id":"II-D05","title":"Reliance under uncertainty","decision_rule":"Credit sources that audiences actually consult or act on during a crisis or contested event.","required_unit":"verified reliance event per respondent or organization","required_denominator":"all eligible high-uncertainty decisions","decisive_stage":"credibility","minimum_comparison":"Matched crisis, source availability, and stakes","mandatory_exclusions":"Self-declared trust without use; peacetime familiarity","confidence_boundary":"Decisive but sparse publicly","category_ids":["II-D05"]},{"metric_id":"II-M19","capability_id":"II-D05","title":"Claim-conduct consistency","decision_rule":"Measure whether later conduct validates consequential factual and policy claims.","required_unit":"validated consequential claim","required_denominator":"all preregistered claims reaching the audience","decisive_stage":"credibility","minimum_comparison":"Matched claim type and validation window","mandatory_exclusions":"Minor errors; claims outside the actor's control","confidence_boundary":"Policy effects must be separated from communication craft","category_ids":["II-D05"]},{"metric_id":"II-M20","capability_id":"II-D05","title":"Trusted-messenger network","decision_rule":"Credit messengers only when independently trusted by the target audience and demonstrably available in the case.","required_unit":"trusted and activated messenger","required_denominator":"all declared messenger roles","decisive_stage":"credibility","minimum_comparison":"Matched trust measure, audience, and activation","mandatory_exclusions":"Institution count; elite endorsements; assumed partner trust","confidence_boundary":"Partner trust is never automatically pooled","category_ids":["II-D05"]},{"metric_id":"II-M21","capability_id":"II-D06","title":"Cultural exposure","decision_rule":"Measure verified consumption, participation, study, travel, language use, or people-to-people contact as an input only.","required_unit":"verified participant or consumer","required_denominator":"eligible target population","decisive_stage":"attention","minimum_comparison":"Matched definitions and time windows","mandatory_exclusions":"Exports; awards; capacity; potential audience","confidence_boundary":"Cannot decide cultural influence alone","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"metric_id":"II-M22","capability_id":"II-D06","title":"Affinity change after contact","decision_rule":"Credit cultural influence when contact changes affinity or preference relative to a baseline or comparison.","required_unit":"effect size on affinity or preference","required_denominator":"eligible exposed and comparison populations","decisive_stage":"affinity_or_preference","minimum_comparison":"Matched contact type, selection controls, and horizon","mandatory_exclusions":"Cross-sectional popularity; participant satisfaction","confidence_boundary":"Self-selection caps confidence without design correction","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"metric_id":"II-M23","capability_id":"II-D06","title":"Revealed cultural preference","decision_rule":"Use consequential study, work, travel, language, subscription, or relationship choices with noncultural drivers explicitly modeled.","required_unit":"observed choice share","required_denominator":"all feasible alternatives in the choice set","decisive_stage":"decision_or_behavior","minimum_comparison":"Matched cost, access, visa, language utility, and capacity","mandatory_exclusions":"Intentions; hypothetical rankings; market share without constraints","confidence_boundary":"Supports an edge only across multiple choice types","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"metric_id":"II-M24","capability_id":"II-D06","title":"Persistence and spillover","decision_rule":"Credit effects that persist after contact and transfer to trust, relationships, or later choices without assuming political alignment.","required_unit":"retained effect at 12+ months","required_denominator":"all measured participants or consumers","decisive_stage":"persistence","minimum_comparison":"Matched follow-up, attrition, and spillover outcome","mandatory_exclusions":"Immediate enthusiasm; alumni anecdotes; assumed policy support","confidence_boundary":"Required for a lead","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"metric_id":"II-M25","capability_id":"II-D07","title":"Objective-linked attitude conversion","decision_rule":"Credit only movement on an objective declared before exposure with a plausible comparison and rival-cause test.","required_unit":"causal effect on preregistered attitude","required_denominator":"eligible treated and comparison population","decisive_stage":"affinity_or_preference","minimum_comparison":"Matched objective, message, audience, and horizon","mandatory_exclusions":"General favorability; retrospective objective selection","confidence_boundary":"Attitude effects cannot decide behavioral conversion","category_ids":["II-D07"]},{"metric_id":"II-M26","capability_id":"II-D07","title":"Decision conversion","decision_rule":"Credit a consequential choice attributable partly to information exposure after controlling policy, material, coercive, and social causes.","required_unit":"attributable decision change","required_denominator":"all eligible decision makers or decisions","decisive_stage":"decision_or_behavior","minimum_comparison":"Matched decision context and causal design","mandatory_exclusions":"Policy coincidence; agreement signature; survey intention","confidence_boundary":"Directional position requires repeated cases","category_ids":["II-D07"]},{"metric_id":"II-M27","capability_id":"II-D07","title":"Behavioral conversion","decision_rule":"Credit observable action, compliance, participation, purchase, vote, mobilization, or resistance linked to exposure and objective.","required_unit":"attributable behavioral event","required_denominator":"all eligible actors","decisive_stage":"decision_or_behavior","minimum_comparison":"Matched action, baseline, exposure, and counterfactual","mandatory_exclusions":"Likes; shares; recall; favorable sentiment","confidence_boundary":"Highest evidentiary bar","category_ids":["II-D07"]},{"metric_id":"II-M28","capability_id":"II-D07","title":"Effect persistence","decision_rule":"Measure whether the converted attitude, decision, or behavior survives time, cost, countermessage, and policy shock.","required_unit":"retained causal effect at declared checkpoint","required_denominator":"all initially affected actors","decisive_stage":"persistence","minimum_comparison":"Matched checkpoints and attrition correction","mandatory_exclusions":"Immediate post-treatment effects; repeated exposure during follow-up","confidence_boundary":"No lead without persistence evidence","category_ids":["II-D07"]},{"metric_id":"II-M29","capability_id":"II-D08","title":"Detection and attribution quality","decision_rule":"Measure time, accuracy, confidence calibration, and independent corroboration for a common manipulation set.","required_unit":"correct detection or attribution","required_denominator":"all seeded and naturally occurring eligible incidents","decisive_stage":"availability","minimum_comparison":"Matched attack set, visibility, and ground truth","mandatory_exclusions":"Takedown count; actor assertion; classified claim without review","confidence_boundary":"No edge from one-sided detections","category_ids":["II-D08"]},{"metric_id":"II-M30","capability_id":"II-D08","title":"Exposure reduction","decision_rule":"Credit mitigation when it causally reduces target-audience exposure or false belief relative to a counterfactual.","required_unit":"reduction in verified human exposure or belief","required_denominator":"all eligible target-audience members","decisive_stage":"attention|credibility","minimum_comparison":"Matched attack, platform, and pre/post controls","mandatory_exclusions":"Accounts removed; content labeled; attacker engagement already near zero","confidence_boundary":"Required to claim defensive effect","category_ids":["II-D08"]},{"metric_id":"II-M31","capability_id":"II-D08","title":"Integrity and rights cost","decision_rule":"Measure false positives, overblocking, chilling, censorship, and transparency alongside mitigation.","required_unit":"harmful intervention per protected item or user","required_denominator":"all interventions and eligible protected expression","decisive_stage":"availability","minimum_comparison":"Matched threat severity and legal context","mandatory_exclusions":"Government assertion that suppression is necessary","confidence_boundary":"Censorship cannot count as integrity by default","category_ids":["II-D08"]},{"metric_id":"II-M32","capability_id":"II-D08","title":"Recovery and resilience","decision_rule":"Credit restoration of trusted access, corrected understanding, and normal information function after disruption.","required_unit":"time to restored function and residual false belief","required_denominator":"all disrupted priority audiences","decisive_stage":"credibility|persistence","minimum_comparison":"Matched disruption and recovery horizon","mandatory_exclusions":"Service restoration without audience recovery; attacker inactivity","confidence_boundary":"Lead requires repeated, independently verified recoveries","category_ids":["II-D08"]},{"metric_id":"II-M33","capability_id":"II-D09","title":"Measurement completeness","decision_rule":"Credit systems that measure declared downstream outcomes, counterfactuals, harms, and persistence rather than activity alone.","required_unit":"campaigns with valid outcome measurement","required_denominator":"all completed campaigns in sampled portfolio","decisive_stage":"decision_or_behavior|persistence","minimum_comparison":"Matched campaign class and disclosure standard","mandatory_exclusions":"Evaluation office; dashboard; output target","confidence_boundary":"One-sided public reporting cannot decide position","category_ids":["II-D09"]},{"metric_id":"II-M34","capability_id":"II-D09","title":"Evidence-to-design change","decision_rule":"Credit documented changes to objectives, content, messenger, channel, targeting, or stop decisions caused by findings.","required_unit":"validated design change","required_denominator":"all completed evaluations","decisive_stage":"availability","minimum_comparison":"Matched organizational record and causal trace","mandatory_exclusions":"Change coincident with evaluation; management assertion","confidence_boundary":"Requires independent or auditable record","category_ids":["II-D09"]},{"metric_id":"II-M35","capability_id":"II-D09","title":"Repeated-cycle improvement","decision_rule":"Credit better downstream results on a comparable second cycle after an evidence-driven change.","required_unit":"effect-size improvement across cycles","required_denominator":"all eligible repeated interventions","decisive_stage":"decision_or_behavior|persistence","minimum_comparison":"Matched objective, audience, and measurement method","mandatory_exclusions":"Different campaign; easier audience; more resources without adjustment control","confidence_boundary":"Decisive and currently unavailable comparatively","category_ids":["II-D09"]},{"metric_id":"II-M36","capability_id":"II-D09","title":"Failure retention and institutional memory","decision_rule":"Credit preservation and later use of negative findings across leadership, contractor, or organizational change.","required_unit":"reused validated lesson","required_denominator":"all consequential failed or stopped interventions","decisive_stage":"persistence","minimum_comparison":"Matched turnover and follow-up window","mandatory_exclusions":"After-action report; inaccessible archive; success-only publication","confidence_boundary":"Opacity and selective disclosure cap comparative confidence","category_ids":["II-D09"]}],"observations":[{"observation_id":"II-O001","capability_ids":["II-D01"],"metric_ids":["II-M01","II-M03"],"case_ids":["II-C01"],"slice":"global_process","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"current through 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"U.S. guidance requires country-context analysis, audience research, strategic plans, monitoring, and evaluation.","quantitative_anchor":"formal requirements across public-diplomacy posts","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S001","II-S002"],"evidence_role":"official_structure","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"one_sided_process","limitation":"Requirements do not reveal compliance, forecast accuracy, or outcome gains.","adjudication_effect":"supports_capacity_not_position"},{"observation_id":"II-O002","capability_ids":["II-D01"],"metric_ids":["II-M02","II-M03"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C14"],"slice":"exchange_and_spaces","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"2019-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"Program evaluations and learning agendas show audience segmentation, relationship mapping, and intended feedback use.","quantitative_anchor":"multiple program evaluations; no common campaign denominator","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S005","II-S006","II-S007","II-S008","II-S009"],"evidence_role":"official_evaluation","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"one_sided_unmatched","limitation":"Selection and self-report dominate, and research-use records are incomplete.","adjudication_effect":"supports_capacity_not_accuracy"},{"observation_id":"II-O003","capability_ids":["II-D01"],"metric_ids":["II-M01","II-M03","II-M04"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C27"],"slice":"historical_oversight","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"2007-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"GAO and OIG records document persistent audience-research, coordination, and evaluation gaps despite formal machinery.","quantitative_anchor":"recurrent oversight findings across two decades","evidentiary_use":"counterevidence","source_ids":["II-S013","II-S014","II-S016","II-S017"],"evidence_role":"independent_oversight","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_unmatched","limitation":"Historical findings do not establish current performance in every bureau or post.","adjudication_effect":"blocks_us_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O004","capability_ids":["II-D01"],"metric_ids":["II-M01","II-M02","II-M03"],"case_ids":["II-C02"],"slice":"global_process","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2020-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"Top-level PRC doctrine calls for audience differentiation, localization, research, and stronger international communication.","quantitative_anchor":"central directives across multiple official documents","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S020","II-S022","II-S023"],"evidence_role":"official_strategy","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"one_sided_process","limitation":"Doctrine does not disclose methods, forecast errors, or failed campaigns.","adjudication_effect":"supports_capacity_not_position"},{"observation_id":"II-O005","capability_ids":["II-D01"],"metric_ids":["II-M02","II-M03"],"case_ids":["II-C02","II-C12"],"slice":"localized_media_architecture","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2020-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"Expanded bureaus, languages, partnerships, and localized content show an apparatus capable of collecting local signals and adapting output.","quantitative_anchor":"claimed 184 Xinhua bureaus; CGTN availability in more than 160 countries","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S023","II-S025","II-S026","II-S052"],"evidence_role":"actor_output_plus_independent_context","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"one_sided_proxy","limitation":"Footprint is not validated audience understanding and first-party counts may not be current or comparable.","adjudication_effect":"supports_capacity_not_accuracy"},{"observation_id":"II-O006","capability_ids":["II-D01"],"metric_ids":["II-M01","II-M02","II-M03","II-M04"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C02","II-C27"],"slice":"comparability_gate","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"credibility","finding":"No public matched portfolio reports preregistered audience forecasts, validation error, documented design changes, and downstream effect gains for both systems.","quantitative_anchor":"zero matched public portfolios meeting all four contracts","evidentiary_use":"boundary","source_ids":["II-S001","II-S002","II-S010","II-S014","II-S020","II-S023"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"asymmetric","limitation":"Classified or internal learning may exist but cannot support a public comparative judgment.","adjudication_effect":"requires_insufficient_comparative_basis"},{"observation_id":"II-O007","capability_ids":["II-D02"],"metric_ids":["II-M05","II-M06","II-M07"],"case_ids":["II-C21"],"slice":"central_alignment","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2020-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"PRC doctrine integrates party-state policy, national narrative, state media, culture, and localized international communication under sustained central direction.","quantitative_anchor":"multi-document, multi-year central strategy","evidentiary_use":"affirmative","source_ids":["II-S020","II-S021","II-S022","II-S023","II-S024"],"evidence_role":"official_strategy","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Formal alignment can suppress corrective feedback and does not guarantee credibility.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O008","capability_ids":["II-D02"],"metric_ids":["II-M05","II-M06"],"case_ids":["II-C20"],"slice":"distributed_alignment","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"current through 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"U.S. guidance defines policy-message planning and a division among diplomats, programs, and editorially independent media.","quantitative_anchor":"formal structure; autonomous ecosystem not centrally taskable","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S001","II-S002","II-S003","II-S011"],"evidence_role":"official_structure","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Pluralism can improve credibility but makes message consistency less controllable.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_model_not_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O009","capability_ids":["II-D02"],"metric_ids":["II-M08"],"case_ids":["II-C03"],"slice":"performance_narrative","system":"PRC-centered","period":"study published 2024","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference","finding":"A preregistered 19-country experiment found representative CGTN messages moved preferences toward China's political-economic model and outperformed sampled U.S. government messages.","quantitative_anchor":"19-country preregistered survey experiment","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_causal","source_ids":["II-S049"],"evidence_role":"independent_experiment","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_experimental","limitation":"Forced exposure, low natural viewership, and short-run attitudes limit external validity.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_edge_not_lead"},{"observation_id":"II-O010","capability_ids":["II-D02"],"metric_ids":["II-M07","II-M08"],"case_ids":["II-C04"],"slice":"adversarial_shock","system":"PRC-centered","period":"post-2020 border clash","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference","finding":"Positive aid-and-friendship messages produced modest attitude gains, while negative wolf-warrior messages were ineffective or backfired in India.","quantitative_anchor":"preregistered one-country experiment","evidentiary_use":"mixed_causal","source_ids":["II-S050"],"evidence_role":"independent_experiment","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_experimental","limitation":"One hostile bilateral context cannot represent global audiences.","adjudication_effect":"counters_prc_lead"},{"observation_id":"II-O011","capability_ids":["II-D02"],"metric_ids":["II-M05","II-M07"],"case_ids":["II-C20"],"slice":"current_policy_shock","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"2025-2026","causal_stage":"credibility","finding":"Foreign-aid, international-media, and institutional changes created visible tension with longstanding partnership, freedom, and reliability narratives.","quantitative_anchor":"correlated multi-policy disruption","evidentiary_use":"counterevidence","source_ids":["II-S013","II-S014","II-S015","II-S034","II-S035","II-S067"],"evidence_role":"independent_oversight_and_surveys","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"A new policy may be coherent with a new narrative; disapproval is not communication failure alone.","adjudication_effect":"counters_us_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O012","capability_ids":["II-D02"],"metric_ids":["II-M05","II-M06","II-M07","II-M08"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C20","II-C21"],"slice":"narrative_synthesis","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"credibility","finding":"The PRC system shows stronger formal cross-institution alignment plus some causal persuasion evidence; U.S. pluralism and credible independent voices are real but current policy-message contradictions are substantial.","quantitative_anchor":"two causal message experiments plus current multi-source context","evidentiary_use":"synthesis","source_ids":["II-S001","II-S002","II-S020","II-S023","II-S034","II-S035","II-S049","II-S050"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"No matched global contradiction rate exists, and policy performance is inseparable from narrative credibility.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_edge_low_comparative_confidence"},{"observation_id":"II-O013","capability_ids":["II-D03"],"metric_ids":["II-M09","II-M10"],"case_ids":["II-C12"],"slice":"state_media_supply","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2024-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"CGTN and Xinhua report extensive multilingual production and bureau networks capable of rapid global output.","quantitative_anchor":"more than 160 countries claimed by CGTN; 184 bureaus claimed by Xinhua","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S025","II-S026"],"evidence_role":"actor_output_claim","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"one_sided_proxy","limitation":"Availability, bureaus, and followers do not measure latency, quality, or audience uptake.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_capacity_not_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O014","capability_ids":["II-D03"],"metric_ids":["II-M09","II-M10","II-M12"],"case_ids":["II-C11"],"slice":"international_media_supply","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"FY2024","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"USAGM produced in 63 languages across more than 100 markets with documented local expertise and large measured audiences.","quantitative_anchor":"63 languages; more than 100 markets; 427 million measured weekly adults","evidentiary_use":"affirmative","source_ids":["II-S010"],"evidence_role":"actor_report_with_method","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Rolling surveys and denied-market gaps complicate recency; output is not directly latency tested.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_capacity"},{"observation_id":"II-O015","capability_ids":["II-D03"],"metric_ids":["II-M09","II-M10","II-M12"],"case_ids":["II-C16","II-C26"],"slice":"covert_automation","system":"PRC-linked","period":"2019-2025","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"DRAGONBRIDGE generated enormous multilingual output but most observed channels had no subscribers and most videos had fewer than 100 views.","quantitative_anchor":"more than 175,000 lifetime channel removals; roughly 80% with zero subscribers; about 65% of videos below 100 views","evidentiary_use":"counterevidence","source_ids":["II-S058"],"evidence_role":"platform_threat_report","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_platform_specific","limitation":"Detected campaigns on Google services are selected and may not represent other channels.","adjudication_effect":"blocks_volume_based_prc_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O016","capability_ids":["II-D03"],"metric_ids":["II-M10","II-M12"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04"],"slice":"message_quality","system":"PRC-centered","period":"studies published 2024","causal_stage":"comprehension|affinity_or_preference","finding":"Representative performance messages persuaded in one multicountry experiment, while combative messaging failed or backfired in India, showing content fit rather than volume is decisive.","quantitative_anchor":"two preregistered experiments with divergent effects","evidentiary_use":"mixed_causal","source_ids":["II-S049","II-S050"],"evidence_role":"independent_experiments","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_but_narrow","limitation":"Treatments do not measure production speed, correction, or natural uptake.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_strength_and_boundary"},{"observation_id":"II-O017","capability_ids":["II-D03"],"metric_ids":["II-M09","II-M10","II-M11"],"case_ids":["II-C26"],"slice":"ai_localization","system":"PRC-linked and other actors","period":"2024-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"Platform and investigative reports show generative AI lowering the cost and time of multilingual content production.","quantitative_anchor":"multiple detected clusters; no common denominator","evidentiary_use":"emerging_input","source_ids":["II-S061","II-S062","II-S063","II-S068"],"evidence_role":"platform_and_investigative","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"one_sided_detected_sample","limitation":"Detection is incomplete and no matched localization-quality or correction dataset exists.","adjudication_effect":"supports_contested_not_directional"},{"observation_id":"II-O018","capability_ids":["II-D03"],"metric_ids":["II-M09","II-M10","II-M11","II-M12"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C11","II-C12","II-C16","II-C26"],"slice":"content_synthesis","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"PRC centralization and automation favor output speed; U.S. media and independent ecosystems show large uptake and quality safeguards; neither has matched event-level latency, localization, correction, and consumption data.","quantitative_anchor":"zero matched four-contract event portfolios","evidentiary_use":"synthesis","source_ids":["II-S010","II-S011","II-S023","II-S025","II-S049","II-S058","II-S062"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"asymmetric","limitation":"Different media models and disclosure make direct comparison unstable.","adjudication_effect":"supports_contested_low_comparative_confidence"},{"observation_id":"II-O019","capability_ids":["II-D04"],"metric_ids":["II-M13","II-M14","II-M16"],"case_ids":["II-C11"],"slice":"measured_global_media","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"FY2024","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"USAGM reported its largest measured unduplicated weekly audience among adults outside the United States.","quantitative_anchor":"427 million adults weekly; China excluded","evidentiary_use":"affirmative","source_ids":["II-S010"],"evidence_role":"actor_report_with_documented_method","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"one_sided_measured","limitation":"Some country measurements are up to five years old and the agency authored the report.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O020","capability_ids":["II-D04"],"metric_ids":["II-M13","II-M14"],"case_ids":["II-C11","II-C29"],"slice":"denied_markets","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"FY2023-FY2024","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"PRC restrictions prevented representative USAGM measurement in China, forcing exclusion of a historically large audience and leaving RFA totals unreportable.","quantitative_anchor":"last face-to-face China measure 2017; current total excludes China","evidentiary_use":"measurement_boundary","source_ids":["II-S010"],"evidence_role":"actor_report_with_method","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_unmatched","limitation":"The gap can undercount real reach but also prevents current validation.","adjudication_effect":"reduces_us_confidence_not_position"},{"observation_id":"II-O021","capability_ids":["II-D04"],"metric_ids":["II-M13","II-M14","II-M16"],"case_ids":["II-C12"],"slice":"prc_global_media","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2024-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"CGTN and Xinhua have extensive claimed global availability, followers, bureaus, and content-sharing pathways.","quantitative_anchor":"CGTN claims availability in more than 160 countries and more than 600 million followers; Xinhua claims 184 bureaus","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S025","II-S026","II-S052"],"evidence_role":"actor_claim_plus_context","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"mismatched_input","limitation":"Counts are not independently measured, unduplicated consumption and may include low-quality followers.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_reach_input_not_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O022","capability_ids":["II-D04"],"metric_ids":["II-M13","II-M15"],"case_ids":["II-C13"],"slice":"local_content_sharing","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2000-2018 evidence","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"PRC content-sharing partnerships inserted state-linked material into local media systems and were associated with approval changes in East Asia and Pacific.","quantitative_anchor":"cross-country observational portfolio","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_with_causal_limit","source_ids":["II-S046","II-S047","II-S048"],"evidence_role":"independent_observational","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Individual exposure, disclosure, editorial transformation, and selection remain unresolved.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_distribution_effect"},{"observation_id":"II-O023","capability_ids":["II-D04"],"metric_ids":["II-M13","II-M15"],"case_ids":["II-C29"],"slice":"institutional_disruption","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"2025-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"Current official-media restructuring and program disruption create a serious risk that pre-2025 measured U.S. reach overstates present capacity.","quantitative_anchor":"multi-organization disruption; no current audience denominator","evidentiary_use":"counterevidence","source_ids":["II-S013","II-S014","II-S015"],"evidence_role":"independent_oversight","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_unmatched","limitation":"Operational and legal outcomes were moving during the evidence window; current consumption is not yet measured.","adjudication_effect":"blocks_us_lead_and_lowers_confidence"},{"observation_id":"II-O024","capability_ids":["II-D04"],"metric_ids":["II-M13","II-M14","II-M15","II-M16"],"case_ids":["II-C11","II-C12","II-C13","II-C29"],"slice":"distribution_synthesis","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"The U.S.-anchored system retains the only large, method-documented, unduplicated global consumption estimate and a broad independent ecosystem; PRC supply is global and growing but lacks a comparable consumption denominator.","quantitative_anchor":"427 million measured U.S. weekly audience versus no admitted matched PRC total","evidentiary_use":"synthesis","source_ids":["II-S010","II-S025","II-S026","II-S046","II-S052"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"mismatched_recency_and_methods","limitation":"Current U.S. disruption and missing PRC audience data make the edge low confidence and explicitly not a lead.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_partner_edge_low_comparative_confidence"},{"observation_id":"II-O025","capability_ids":["II-D05"],"metric_ids":["II-M17","II-M19"],"case_ids":["II-C06"],"slice":"global_favorability","system":"Both systems","period":"2026","causal_stage":"credibility","finding":"Pew found China viewed more favorably than the United States in most of 36 surveyed countries, with the U.S. ahead in six and major regional exceptions.","quantitative_anchor":"42,151 adults in 36 countries; U.S. ahead in 6","evidentiary_use":"current_context","source_ids":["II-S034"],"evidence_role":"independent_representative_survey","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_country_level","limitation":"Favorability and leader confidence are not trust in a named information source and moved rapidly with policy.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_context_not_source_trust_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O026","capability_ids":["II-D05"],"metric_ids":["II-M17","II-M19"],"case_ids":["II-C06"],"slice":"global_leadership_approval","system":"Both systems","period":"2025 surveys published 2026","causal_stage":"credibility","finding":"Gallup recorded 36% median approval of China's leadership and 31% for U.S. leadership across more than 130 countries.","quantitative_anchor":"China 36%; U.S. 31%; U.S. down 8 points; China up 4","evidentiary_use":"current_context","source_ids":["II-S035"],"evidence_role":"independent_representative_survey","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_country_level","limitation":"Leader approval is not source-specific credibility and the change was driven strongly by U.S. decline.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_context_not_durable_capability"},{"observation_id":"II-O027","capability_ids":["II-D05"],"metric_ids":["II-M17","II-M19"],"case_ids":["II-C06","II-C08"],"slice":"nation_brand_reputation","system":"Both systems","period":"2026","causal_stage":"credibility","finding":"Brand Finance still ranked the U.S. first overall but reported China above the U.S. on reputation while the U.S. led familiarity and influence.","quantitative_anchor":"U.S. score 74.9 and rank 1; China 73.5 and rank 2","evidentiary_use":"mixed_context","source_ids":["II-S036","II-S037"],"evidence_role":"proprietary_survey","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Construct overlap and proprietary weighting prevent a direct credibility score.","adjudication_effect":"supports_contested"},{"observation_id":"II-O028","capability_ids":["II-D05"],"metric_ids":["II-M17","II-M18"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C05"],"slice":"message_experiments","system":"Both systems","period":"studies published 2024","causal_stage":"credibility|affinity_or_preference","finding":"Experiments show both PRC and U.S. messages can move attitudes under specified conditions, while message tone and political context can reverse effects.","quantitative_anchor":"three experiments across 19-country, India, and PRC samples","evidentiary_use":"mixed_causal","source_ids":["II-S049","II-S050","II-S051"],"evidence_role":"independent_experiments","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_experimental","limitation":"Short-run treatment effects do not establish general source trust or crisis reliance.","adjudication_effect":"supports_contested"},{"observation_id":"II-O029","capability_ids":["II-D05"],"metric_ids":["II-M17","II-M19"],"case_ids":["II-C18","II-C19"],"slice":"information_integrity_context","system":"Both systems","period":"2025-2026","causal_stage":"credibility","finding":"PRC censorship and very low press freedom impose major integrity costs, while U.S. press-freedom and trust declines weaken an assumed automatic credibility advantage.","quantitative_anchor":"Freedom House China 9/100; RSF 2026 China 178/180 and U.S. 64/180","evidentiary_use":"counterevidence_both","source_ids":["II-S054","II-S055","II-S056","II-S057","II-S064"],"evidence_role":"independent_country_assessments","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Domestic environment indices are not direct foreign-source trust measures.","adjudication_effect":"blocks_either_lead"},{"observation_id":"II-O030","capability_ids":["II-D05"],"metric_ids":["II-M17","II-M18","II-M19","II-M20"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C06","II-C07","II-C18","II-C19"],"slice":"credibility_synthesis","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"credibility","finding":"Current national reputation leans PRC in many markets; source-specific trust, independent-messenger credibility, and crisis reliance remain mixed and regionally contingent.","quantitative_anchor":"convergence of two global surveys with contrary integrity and cultural indicators","evidentiary_use":"synthesis","source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S036","II-S038","II-S049","II-S054","II-S055","II-S056","II-S057"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Country image, policy, source trust, and messenger reliance cannot be collapsed.","adjudication_effect":"supports_contested_moderate_comparative_confidence"},{"observation_id":"II-O031","capability_ids":["II-D06"],"metric_ids":["II-M21","II-M22","II-M23"],"case_ids":["II-C08","II-C10"],"slice":"indo_pacific_cultural_profile","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"2025","causal_stage":"attention|affinity_or_preference","finding":"Lowy's Asia Power Index recorded a large U.S. cultural-influence advantage while China made the largest annual gain.","quantitative_anchor":"U.S. 84.2; China 58.7; China up 11.7","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_with_limits","source_ids":["II-S039","II-S040"],"evidence_role":"independent_composite","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_composite","limitation":"Underlying measures mix projection, flows, inputs, and preferences; weights are not adopted.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_edge_not_lead"},{"observation_id":"II-O032","capability_ids":["II-D06"],"metric_ids":["II-M21","II-M22"],"case_ids":["II-C08"],"slice":"global_culture_reputation","system":"Both systems","period":"2026","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference","finding":"Brand Finance ranked the U.S. first in arts and entertainment while China improved overall soft-power standing and reputation.","quantitative_anchor":"U.S. rank 1 in arts and entertainment; China overall rank 2","evidentiary_use":"mixed_affirmative","source_ids":["II-S036","II-S037"],"evidence_role":"proprietary_survey","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Broad brand perceptions and proprietary weighting do not prove contact-driven affinity.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_edge_with_prc_gain"},{"observation_id":"II-O033","capability_ids":["II-D06"],"metric_ids":["II-M21","II-M23"],"case_ids":["II-C10"],"slice":"international_study_choice","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"academic year 2024/25","causal_stage":"decision_or_behavior","finding":"The United States remained the leading host of international students, an important revealed-preference input despite a decline in new enrollment.","quantitative_anchor":"1,177,766 international students","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S041","II-S043"],"evidence_role":"independent_administrative_synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"one_sided_behavior_proxy","limitation":"Capacity, visas, career returns, English, and migration options confound cultural affinity.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_cultural_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O034","capability_ids":["II-D06"],"metric_ids":["II-M21","II-M23"],"case_ids":["II-C09","II-C10"],"slice":"language_choice","system":"Both systems","period":"2025","causal_stage":"attention|affinity_or_preference","finding":"English was the most studied language in 154 countries on Duolingo; Chinese ranked eighth but was the fastest-growing language in 12 countries and second-fastest in the U.S.","quantitative_anchor":"English #1 in 154 countries; Chinese #8 overall","evidentiary_use":"mixed_input","source_ids":["II-S042"],"evidence_role":"platform_behavior_report","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"direct_platform_only","limitation":"Users are self-selected and English utility is not synonymous with U.S. cultural influence.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_edge_with_prc_growth"},{"observation_id":"II-O035","capability_ids":["II-D06"],"metric_ids":["II-M21","II-M22","II-M23"],"case_ids":["II-C09","II-C15"],"slice":"prc_cultural_growth","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2024-2026","causal_stage":"availability|attention","finding":"Official and platform evidence shows rapid growth in PRC cultural exports, games, audiovisual content, language learning, and inbound contact.","quantitative_anchor":"multiple expanding channels; no common independent effect denominator","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S027","II-S028","II-S029","II-S030","II-S031","II-S032","II-S033","II-S042"],"evidence_role":"official_outputs_plus_platform","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"one_sided_input","limitation":"Most measures stop at supply, revenue, enrollment, or exposure.","adjudication_effect":"counters_us_lead"},{"observation_id":"II-O036","capability_ids":["II-D06"],"metric_ids":["II-M21","II-M22","II-M23","II-M24"],"case_ids":["II-C07","II-C08","II-C09","II-C10","II-C14","II-C15"],"slice":"cultural_synthesis","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference","finding":"U.S. and partner cultural ecosystems retain broader attraction and revealed choice across entertainment, study, language, and destinations; PRC growth is substantial but downstream affinity and persistence remain thinner.","quantitative_anchor":"convergent independent regional, brand, study, language, and destination indicators","evidentiary_use":"synthesis","source_ids":["II-S036","II-S038","II-S039","II-S041","II-S042","II-S043","II-S044","II-S045"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Independent culture is not government-taskable and many choice indicators have noncultural causes.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_partner_edge_moderate_comparative_confidence"},{"observation_id":"II-O037","capability_ids":["II-D07"],"metric_ids":["II-M25","II-M26","II-M27","II-M28"],"case_ids":["II-C03"],"slice":"model_preference_experiment","system":"PRC-centered","period":"published 2024","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference","finding":"CGTN treatments causally shifted political-economic model preference in a multicountry experiment.","quantitative_anchor":"19-country preregistered experiment","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_attitude","source_ids":["II-S049"],"evidence_role":"independent_experiment","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_experimental","limitation":"Forced exposure, short follow-up, and attitude endpoint do not establish decision, behavior, or persistence.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_attitude_conversion_only"},{"observation_id":"II-O038","capability_ids":["II-D07"],"metric_ids":["II-M25","II-M28"],"case_ids":["II-C04"],"slice":"message_tone_experiment","system":"PRC-centered","period":"published 2024","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference","finding":"Positive PRC messages achieved modest gains while negative messaging failed or backfired in India.","quantitative_anchor":"one-country preregistered experiment","evidentiary_use":"mixed_attitude","source_ids":["II-S050"],"evidence_role":"independent_experiment","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_experimental","limitation":"No behavioral endpoint or long follow-up.","adjudication_effect":"shows_conditional_conversion"},{"observation_id":"II-O039","capability_ids":["II-D07"],"metric_ids":["II-M25","II-M28"],"case_ids":["II-C05"],"slice":"democracy_message_experiment","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"published 2024","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference","finding":"U.S. embassy democracy messaging could improve attitudes inside China under specified threat and silence conditions.","quantitative_anchor":"one-country survey experiment","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_attitude","source_ids":["II-S051"],"evidence_role":"independent_experiment","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_experimental","limitation":"No natural-exposure rate, behavioral endpoint, or system comparator.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_attitude_conversion_only"},{"observation_id":"II-O040","capability_ids":["II-D07"],"metric_ids":["II-M25","II-M26","II-M27"],"case_ids":["II-C13"],"slice":"content_sharing_outcome","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2000-2018 evidence","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference","finding":"AidData found content-sharing relationships associated with more approval and less disapproval of Chinese leadership.","quantitative_anchor":"cross-country observational association","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_with_causal_limit","source_ids":["II-S046"],"evidence_role":"independent_observational","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Selection, broader PRC ties, and ecological inference prevent causal attribution.","adjudication_effect":"supports_prc_affinity_not_behavior"},{"observation_id":"II-O041","capability_ids":["II-D07"],"metric_ids":["II-M26","II-M27","II-M28"],"case_ids":["II-C13","II-C28"],"slice":"policy_conversion_test","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2000-2018 evidence","causal_stage":"decision_or_behavior","finding":"The same AidData analysis found no systematic relationship between PRC content sharing and UN General Assembly voting alignment.","quantitative_anchor":"no systematic UN-vote association","evidentiary_use":"counterevidence","source_ids":["II-S046"],"evidence_role":"independent_observational","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"UN votes are one elite behavior and may be insensitive to public media exposure.","adjudication_effect":"blocks_prc_behavioral_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O042","capability_ids":["II-D07"],"metric_ids":["II-M25","II-M26","II-M27","II-M28"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C05","II-C13","II-C28"],"slice":"conversion_synthesis","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"decision_or_behavior","finding":"Both systems have bounded attitude-effect evidence; neither has a matched, representative portfolio connecting natural exposure to consequential decisions, behavior, and persistence.","quantitative_anchor":"zero matched public behavioral portfolios meeting all four contracts","evidentiary_use":"boundary","source_ids":["II-S046","II-S049","II-S050","II-S051"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"asymmetric","limitation":"Public causal evidence concentrates on short-run survey attitudes.","adjudication_effect":"requires_insufficient_comparative_basis"},{"observation_id":"II-O043","capability_ids":["II-D08"],"metric_ids":["II-M29","II-M30"],"case_ids":["II-C16"],"slice":"dragonbridge_detection","system":"U.S.-anchored commercial platform against PRC-linked activity","period":"2019-2024","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"Google attributed and removed a very large DRAGONBRIDGE network while reporting extremely low organic engagement.","quantitative_anchor":"more than 175,000 channels removed over lifetime; most observed content minimally viewed","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_detection","source_ids":["II-S058"],"evidence_role":"platform_threat_report","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"one_sided_platform","limitation":"Removal volume does not reveal misses, false positives, or counterfactual exposure reduction.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_ecosystem_detection_not_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O044","capability_ids":["II-D08"],"metric_ids":["II-M29","II-M30"],"case_ids":["II-C17"],"slice":"repeated_platform_disruption","system":"U.S.-anchored independent platforms","period":"2022-2026","causal_stage":"availability|attention","finding":"Google, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI repeatedly attributed and disrupted state-linked influence operations.","quantitative_anchor":"multiple platform families and reporting cycles","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_detection","source_ids":["II-S059","II-S060","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063"],"evidence_role":"platform_reports","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_correlated","limitation":"Companies share incentives, visibility limits, and selected detected samples; independent ground truth is incomplete.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_ecosystem_capacity"},{"observation_id":"II-O045","capability_ids":["II-D08"],"metric_ids":["II-M29","II-M30","II-M32"],"case_ids":["II-C16","II-C17"],"slice":"defender_effect","system":"Both systems","period":"2022-2026","causal_stage":"attention","finding":"Many detected campaigns failed to gain meaningful organic engagement, but public records rarely separate attacker weakness from defender-caused exposure reduction.","quantitative_anchor":"low engagement across several disclosed clusters; no causal denial rate","evidentiary_use":"boundary","source_ids":["II-S058","II-S060","II-S062","II-S063"],"evidence_role":"platform_reports","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"asymmetric","limitation":"Adversary failure is not automatically defensive success.","adjudication_effect":"blocks_us_lead"},{"observation_id":"II-O046","capability_ids":["II-D08"],"metric_ids":["II-M29","II-M30","II-M31","II-M32"],"case_ids":["II-C18"],"slice":"prc_access_control","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2020-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"PRC blocking and censorship can reduce hostile-message availability but impose severe access, press-freedom, false-positive, and feedback costs.","quantitative_anchor":"Freedom on the Net score 9/100; RSF rank 178/180 in 2026","evidentiary_use":"mixed_boundary","source_ids":["II-S024","II-S054","II-S056"],"evidence_role":"official_strategy_plus_independent_assessments","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Indices do not measure a common hostile campaign or actual foreign-message denial rate.","adjudication_effect":"blocks_counting_censorship_as_integrity"},{"observation_id":"II-O047","capability_ids":["II-D08"],"metric_ids":["II-M29","II-M31","II-M32"],"case_ids":["II-C19"],"slice":"us_integrity_cost","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"2025-2026","causal_stage":"availability|credibility","finding":"The U.S. information environment remains much more open than the PRC's, but press-freedom decline, polarization, and platform opacity impose real integrity and trust costs.","quantitative_anchor":"RSF rank 64/180 in 2026; domestic news trust context low","evidentiary_use":"counterevidence","source_ids":["II-S055","II-S057","II-S064"],"evidence_role":"independent_assessments","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"partial_matched","limitation":"Domestic indicators do not directly measure foreign manipulation defense.","adjudication_effect":"counters_us_lead"},{"observation_id":"II-O048","capability_ids":["II-D08"],"metric_ids":["II-M29","II-M30","II-M31","II-M32"],"case_ids":["II-C16","II-C17","II-C18","II-C19","II-C30"],"slice":"counter_influence_synthesis","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"persistence","finding":"The U.S.-anchored ecosystem shows stronger transparent attribution and platform disruption; PRC controls can deny access but at large integrity cost. No common attack set supports a directional system judgment.","quantitative_anchor":"zero matched datasets containing detection, misses, exposure, errors, rights cost, and recovery","evidentiary_use":"synthesis","source_ids":["II-S004","II-S054","II-S055","II-S058","II-S059","II-S060","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"asymmetric","limitation":"Visibility, legal standards, and objectives differ fundamentally.","adjudication_effect":"supports_contested_low_comparative_confidence"},{"observation_id":"II-O049","capability_ids":["II-D09"],"metric_ids":["II-M33","II-M34"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C27"],"slice":"us_formal_learning","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"current through 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"State and USAGM frameworks explicitly require monitoring, evaluation, audience research, and data-informed adjustment.","quantitative_anchor":"formal requirements across diplomatic and media systems","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S002","II-S010","II-S011"],"evidence_role":"official_method","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"one_sided_process","limitation":"Formal evaluation capacity does not prove findings change designs or improve results.","adjudication_effect":"supports_capacity_not_position"},{"observation_id":"II-O050","capability_ids":["II-D09"],"metric_ids":["II-M33","II-M34","II-M35"],"case_ids":["II-C11","II-C27"],"slice":"usagm_performance_loop","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"FY2020-FY2024","causal_stage":"attention|credibility","finding":"USAGM reports targets, validation rules, audience trends, trust measures, and narrative explanations across years.","quantitative_anchor":"five-year performance tables and validation appendix","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S010","II-S011"],"evidence_role":"actor_performance_report","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"one_sided_unmatched","limitation":"Changing survey coverage and missing markets prevent clean repeated-effect comparisons; actor authored.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_learning_input"},{"observation_id":"II-O051","capability_ids":["II-D09"],"metric_ids":["II-M33","II-M34","II-M36"],"case_ids":["II-C14","II-C27"],"slice":"exchange_evaluations","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"2019-2026","causal_stage":"affinity_or_preference|persistence","finding":"ECA evaluations and a learning agenda preserve program findings, limitations, and longitudinal questions.","quantitative_anchor":"multiple externally conducted evaluations","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S006","II-S007","II-S008","II-S009"],"evidence_role":"officially_published_evaluation","fact_confidence":"moderate","comparability":"one_sided_unmatched","limitation":"Public files rarely trace a finding to a redesigned repeat cycle and better causal result.","adjudication_effect":"supports_us_capacity_not_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O052","capability_ids":["II-D09"],"metric_ids":["II-M33","II-M34","II-M35","II-M36"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C27"],"slice":"us_oversight_gaps","system":"U.S.-anchored","period":"2007-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"GAO and OIG findings show recurring coordination, measurement, data-age, and management weaknesses despite a comparatively visible evaluation system.","quantitative_anchor":"recurrent findings across historical and current oversight","evidentiary_use":"counterevidence","source_ids":["II-S013","II-S014","II-S016","II-S017"],"evidence_role":"independent_oversight","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"direct_unmatched","limitation":"Older findings may not represent all current programs; disruption creates a moving baseline.","adjudication_effect":"blocks_us_edge"},{"observation_id":"II-O053","capability_ids":["II-D09"],"metric_ids":["II-M33","II-M34"],"case_ids":["II-C02","II-C27"],"slice":"prc_learning_doctrine","system":"PRC-centered","period":"2020-2026","causal_stage":"availability","finding":"PRC doctrine calls for audience research, tailored communication, feedback, and stronger international-communication effectiveness.","quantitative_anchor":"repeated central doctrine","evidentiary_use":"affirmative_input","source_ids":["II-S020","II-S023"],"evidence_role":"official_strategy","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"one_sided_process","limitation":"Public sources do not disclose negative findings, stop decisions, counterfactual designs, or repeated-cycle gains.","adjudication_effect":"supports_capacity_not_position"},{"observation_id":"II-O054","capability_ids":["II-D09"],"metric_ids":["II-M33","II-M34","II-M35","II-M36"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C02","II-C27"],"slice":"learning_synthesis","system":"Both systems","period":"evidence cutoff 2026-08-13","causal_stage":"persistence","finding":"The U.S. system is more transparent about measurement and failures; the PRC system states adaptation aims but reveals less. Transparency asymmetry is not evidence of superior improvement.","quantitative_anchor":"zero matched repeated-cycle effect comparisons","evidentiary_use":"boundary","source_ids":["II-S002","II-S006","II-S010","II-S014","II-S020","II-S023"],"evidence_role":"synthesis","fact_confidence":"high","comparability":"asymmetric","limitation":"Classified or internal records may contain evidence, but public observability differs.","adjudication_effect":"requires_insufficient_comparative_basis"}],"sources":[{"source_id":"II-S001","publisher":"U.S. Department of State","title":"10 FAH-1 H-020: Public diplomacy at posts abroad","date_or_version":"current through 2026-08-13","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D02|II-D03|II-D04|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Roles, organization, research, content, and field responsibilities","known_limitations":"Rules establish intended capacity, not implementation or effect","url":"https://fam.state.gov/FAM/10FAH01/10FAH010020.html","id":"II-S001","date":"current through 2026-08-13","research_evidence_role":"official_structure","primary_use":"Roles, organization, research, content, and field responsibilities","limitation":"Rules establish intended capacity, not implementation or effect","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D02","II-D03","II-D04","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S002","publisher":"U.S. Department of State","title":"10 FAH-1 H-040: Strategic planning, reporting, and evaluations","date_or_version":"current through 2026-08-13","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D02|II-D07|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability","attention","comprehension","credibility","decision_or_behavior"],"primary_uses":"Country-context, planning, monitoring, and evaluation requirements","known_limitations":"Process requirements do not prove compliance, causal validity, or learning","url":"https://fam.state.gov/FAM/10FAH01/10FAH010040.html","id":"II-S002","date":"current through 2026-08-13","research_evidence_role":"official_method","primary_use":"Country-context, planning, monitoring, and evaluation requirements","limitation":"Process requirements do not prove compliance, causal validity, or learning","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D02","II-D07","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S003","publisher":"U.S. Department of State","title":"Key Topics: Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy","date_or_version":"2026 current page","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D03","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Current official priorities and policy-message themes","known_limitations":"Priority statements do not establish coherence, credibility, or audience effect","url":"https://www.state.gov/key-topics-under-secretary-for-public-diplomacy","id":"II-S003","date":"2026 current page","research_evidence_role":"official_priority_statement","primary_use":"Current official priorities and policy-message themes","limitation":"Priority statements do not establish coherence, credibility, or audience effect","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D03"]},{"source_id":"II-S004","publisher":"U.S. Department of State","title":"10 FAM 370: Countering foreign state information manipulation","date_or_version":"current through 2026-08-13","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D08","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Counter-manipulation authorities, definitions, and coordination","known_limitations":"Doctrine does not establish detection quality, rights cost, or effect","url":"https://fam.state.gov/FAM/10FAM/10FAM0370.html","id":"II-S004","date":"current through 2026-08-13","research_evidence_role":"official_structure","primary_use":"Counter-manipulation authorities, definitions, and coordination","limitation":"Doctrine does not establish detection quality, rights cost, or effect","category_ids":["II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S005","publisher":"U.S. Department of State","title":"American Spaces Standards, version 2.1.1","date_or_version":"2024","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State","actor_coverage":"United States and partner venues","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D05|II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Network standards, programming, access, and local partnerships","known_limitations":"Standards and venue counts do not establish trust or durable affinity","url":"https://americanspaces.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/292/Standards-Main-Document-Version-2.1.1.pdf","id":"II-S005","date":"2024","research_evidence_role":"official_method","primary_use":"Network standards, programming, access, and local partnerships","limitation":"Standards and venue counts do not establish trust or durable affinity","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S006","publisher":"U.S. Department of State","title":"Evaluation of American Spaces","date_or_version":"program evaluation","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State","actor_coverage":"Selected foreign audiences","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D05|II-D06|II-D07|II-D09","causal_stages":["attention","comprehension","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Participation, perceptions, program outcomes, and limitations","known_limitations":"Selected sites, self-report, and no matched PRC comparator constrain causal use","url":"https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/evaluation_report_american_spaces_final.pdf","id":"II-S006","date":"program evaluation","research_evidence_role":"official_evaluation","primary_use":"Participation, perceptions, program outcomes, and limitations","limitation":"Selected sites, self-report, and no matched PRC comparator constrain causal use","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D06","II-D07","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S007","publisher":"U.S. Department of State ECA","title":"ECA Learning Agenda","date_or_version":"2019","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State ECA","actor_coverage":"United States programs","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D06|II-D07|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability","affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior","persistence"],"primary_uses":"Learning questions and intended evidence loops","known_limitations":"Agenda predates current disruption and does not show completed learning cycles","url":"https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/eca_learning_agenda_dec_2019_0.pdf","id":"II-S007","date":"2019","research_evidence_role":"official_method","primary_use":"Learning questions and intended evidence loops","limitation":"Agenda predates current disruption and does not show completed learning cycles","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D06","II-D07","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S008","publisher":"U.S. Department of State ECA","title":"Evaluation of the Professional Fellows Program","date_or_version":"2020","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State ECA","actor_coverage":"Program participants and alumni","capability_ids":"II-D06|II-D07|II-D09","causal_stages":["affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior","persistence"],"primary_uses":"Exchange relationships, self-reported change, and alumni outcomes","known_limitations":"Selection, self-report, attrition, and no matched PRC comparator","url":"https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/pfp_final_report__12_1_2020_508_final.pdf","id":"II-S008","date":"2020","research_evidence_role":"official_evaluation","primary_use":"Exchange relationships, self-reported change, and alumni outcomes","limitation":"Selection, self-report, attrition, and no matched PRC comparator","category_ids":["II-D06","II-D07","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S009","publisher":"U.S. Department of State ECA","title":"Evaluation of NSLI-Y","date_or_version":"2020","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of State ECA","actor_coverage":"Program participants and alumni","capability_ids":"II-D06|II-D07|II-D09","causal_stages":["comprehension","affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior","persistence"],"primary_uses":"Language, cultural, educational, and longitudinal outcomes","known_limitations":"Program selection and self-report limit national-system attribution","url":"https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/ww_nsli_y_eval_report_sep_2020.pdf","id":"II-S009","date":"2020","research_evidence_role":"official_evaluation","primary_use":"Language, cultural, educational, and longitudinal outcomes","limitation":"Program selection and self-report limit national-system attribution","category_ids":["II-D06","II-D07","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S010","publisher":"U.S. Agency for Global Media","title":"FY 2024 Agency Performance Report","date_or_version":"2025 publication covering FY2024","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"USAGM","actor_coverage":"United States global media audiences","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D03|II-D04|II-D05|II-D09","causal_stages":["attention","credibility"],"primary_uses":"Measured weekly audience, trust, audience research, and performance machinery","known_limitations":"Actor-authored; rolling surveys; China and several denied markets excluded or stale","url":"https://www.usagm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/USAGM-FY-2024-Agency-Performance-Report_Final_1-17-25_WebVersion.pdf","id":"II-S010","date":"2025 publication covering FY2024","research_evidence_role":"actor_performance_report","primary_use":"Measured weekly audience, trust, audience research, and performance machinery","limitation":"Actor-authored; rolling surveys; China and several denied markets excluded or stale","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D03","II-D04","II-D05","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S011","publisher":"U.S. Agency for Global Media","title":"Strategic Plan 2022-2026, 2024 update","date_or_version":"2024","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"USAGM","actor_coverage":"United States global media","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D03|II-D04|II-D05|II-D08|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Mission, impact model, editorial firewall, and measurement design","known_limitations":"Strategy is intent rather than observed performance","url":"https://www.usagm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Strategic-Plan-2022-2026_Update_1-27-25-2.pdf","id":"II-S011","date":"2024","research_evidence_role":"official_strategy","primary_use":"Mission, impact model, editorial firewall, and measurement design","limitation":"Strategy is intent rather than observed performance","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D04","II-D05","II-D08","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S012","publisher":"U.S. Agency for Global Media","title":"FY 2026 Congressional Budget Justification","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"USAGM","actor_coverage":"United States global media","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D04|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Resources, network plans, and current operating assumptions","known_limitations":"Requested resources and forecasts are not delivered capability","url":"https://www.usagm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/USAGM-FY-2026-CBJ-Master.pdf","id":"II-S012","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"official_resource_request","primary_use":"Resources, network plans, and current operating assumptions","limitation":"Requested resources and forecasts are not delivered capability","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D04","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S013","publisher":"U.S. Department of State OIG","title":"Independent auditor report on USAGM FY25 financial statements","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_oversight","institutional_family":"State OIG and USAGM","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Current control, continuity, and management evidence","known_limitations":"Financial audit is not an audience-effect evaluation","url":"https://www.stateoig.gov/report/aud-fm-ib-26-10","id":"II-S013","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"independent_audit","primary_use":"Current control, continuity, and management evidence","limitation":"Financial audit is not an audience-effect evaluation","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S014","publisher":"U.S. Department of State OIG","title":"FY 2025 USAGM major management and performance challenges","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_oversight","institutional_family":"State OIG and USAGM","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D04|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Institutional weaknesses, oversight, measurement, and disruption risks","known_limitations":"Challenge report does not measure comparative audience effects","url":"https://www.stateoig.gov/uploads/report/report_pdf_file/fy-2025-usagm-major-management-and-performance-challenges.pdf","id":"II-S014","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"independent_oversight","primary_use":"Institutional weaknesses, oversight, measurement, and disruption risks","limitation":"Challenge report does not measure comparative audience effects","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D04","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S015","publisher":"Congressional Research Service","title":"Termination of the Global Engagement Center","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"U.S. Congress","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D08|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Current institutional discontinuity and statutory context","known_limitations":"Organizational change does not by itself establish lost operational effect","url":"https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12475","id":"II-S015","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"independent_government_analysis","primary_use":"Current institutional discontinuity and statutory context","limitation":"Organizational change does not by itself establish lost operational effect","category_ids":["II-D08","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S016","publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","title":"U.S. international broadcasting: audience research and evaluation","date_or_version":"2007","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_oversight","institutional_family":"GAO","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D04|II-D09","causal_stages":["attention"],"primary_uses":"Historical audience-research quality and gaps","known_limitations":"Old evidence; calibration only","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-07-904","id":"II-S016","date":"2007","research_evidence_role":"independent_audit","primary_use":"Historical audience-research quality and gaps","limitation":"Old evidence; calibration only","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D04","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S017","publisher":"U.S. Government Accountability Office","title":"U.S. public diplomacy: strategic planning and coordination","date_or_version":"2010","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_oversight","institutional_family":"GAO","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Historical coordination and evaluation weaknesses","known_limitations":"Old evidence; does not establish current position","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-767","id":"II-S017","date":"2010","research_evidence_role":"independent_audit","primary_use":"Historical coordination and evaluation weaknesses","limitation":"Old evidence; does not establish current position","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S018","publisher":"U.S. Department of Defense","title":"Strategy for Operations in the Information Environment","date_or_version":"2023","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"U.S. Department of Defense","actor_coverage":"United States","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Boundary between military OIE and civilian information influence","known_limitations":"Doctrine is primarily a Defense-domain input and supplies no comparative effect","url":"https://media.defense.gov/2023/Nov/17/2003342901/-1/-1/1/2023-DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-FOR-OPERATIONS-IN-THE-INFORMATION-ENVIRONMENT.PDF","id":"II-S018","date":"2023","research_evidence_role":"official_boundary_source","primary_use":"Boundary between military OIE and civilian information influence","limitation":"Doctrine is primarily a Defense-domain input and supplies no comparative effect","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S019","publisher":"NATO Allied Command Transformation","title":"Information Environment Assessment Capability Programme Plan","date_or_version":"2024","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"NATO","actor_coverage":"Participating U.S. partners","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Partner IEA architecture available in NATO cases","known_limitations":"Program initiation does not establish mature capability or outcome","url":"https://www.act.nato.int/article/information-environment-assessment-capability-programme-plan-initiated/","id":"II-S019","date":"2024","research_evidence_role":"partner_structure","primary_use":"Partner IEA architecture available in NATO cases","limitation":"Program initiation does not establish mature capability or outcome","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S020","publisher":"PRC Ministry of Justice / Xinhua","title":"Xi stresses improving China's international communication capacity","date_or_version":"2021","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"PRC","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D02|II-D03|II-D04|II-D05|II-D09","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Top-level doctrine, narrative alignment, localization, and evaluation intent","known_limitations":"Normative first-party statement; no outcome proof","url":"https://en.moj.gov.cn/2021-06/02/c_629007.htm","id":"II-S020","date":"2021","research_evidence_role":"official_strategy","primary_use":"Top-level doctrine, narrative alignment, localization, and evaluation intent","limitation":"Normative first-party statement; no outcome proof","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D02","II-D03","II-D04","II-D05","II-D09"]},{"source_id":"II-S021","publisher":"State Council of the PRC","title":"Report to the 20th CPC National Congress: culture and communication excerpts","date_or_version":"2022","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"PRC","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D06","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Integration of culture, national narrative, and international communication","known_limitations":"Doctrine and ambition do not establish foreign effect","url":"https://english.www.gov.cn/news/topnews/202210/16/content_WS634b9299c6d0a757729e14ab.html","id":"II-S021","date":"2022","research_evidence_role":"official_strategy","primary_use":"Integration of culture, national narrative, and international communication","limitation":"Doctrine and ambition do not establish foreign effect","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S022","publisher":"Cyberspace Administration of China","title":"International communication capacity and discourse power","date_or_version":"2015","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"PRC","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D03|II-D04","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Early central narrative and international-communication architecture","known_limitations":"First-party doctrine; implementation and causal effect unobserved","url":"https://www.cac.gov.cn/2015-12/02/c_1117324405.htm","id":"II-S022","date":"2015","research_evidence_role":"official_strategy","primary_use":"Early central narrative and international-communication architecture","limitation":"First-party doctrine; implementation and causal effect unobserved","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D04"]},{"source_id":"II-S023","publisher":"Cyberspace Administration of China","title":"Tell China's story well and improve international communication","date_or_version":"2020","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"PRC","capability_ids":"II-D01|II-D02|II-D03","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Localization, audience differentiation, narrative production, and responsiveness","known_limitations":"First-party prescription; no matched performance series","url":"https://www.cac.gov.cn/2020-05/12/c_1590838526095763.htm","id":"II-S023","date":"2020","research_evidence_role":"official_method_and_strategy","primary_use":"Localization, audience differentiation, narrative production, and responsiveness","limitation":"First-party prescription; no matched performance series","category_ids":["II-D01","II-D02","II-D03"]},{"source_id":"II-S024","publisher":"State Council Information Office","title":"Building China's cyberspace community with a shared future","date_or_version":"2022","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"PRC","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D04|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Official internet-governance narrative and distribution doctrine","known_limitations":"White paper is advocacy and cannot establish trust or legitimacy","url":"https://english.scio.gov.cn/m/pressroom/2022-11/15/content_78520349_10.htm","id":"II-S024","date":"2022","research_evidence_role":"official_strategy","primary_use":"Official internet-governance narrative and distribution doctrine","limitation":"White paper is advocacy and cannot establish trust or legitimacy","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D04","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S025","publisher":"CGTN","title":"About CGTN","date_or_version":"current page accessed 2026-08-13","evidence_tier":"T4","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"China Media Group","actor_coverage":"PRC state media","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D04","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Claimed country availability, language production, and followers","known_limitations":"Potential availability and followers are neither unduplicated consumption nor influence","url":"https://www.cgtn.com/about-us","id":"II-S025","date":"current page accessed 2026-08-13","research_evidence_role":"actor_reach_claim","primary_use":"Claimed country availability, language production, and followers","limitation":"Potential availability and followers are neither unduplicated consumption nor influence","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D04"]},{"source_id":"II-S026","publisher":"Xinhua","title":"Xinhua global bureau network report","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"T4","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"Xinhua","actor_coverage":"PRC state media","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D04","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Claimed global bureau footprint and production network","known_limitations":"First-party count; bureaus do not establish consumption or effect","url":"https://english.news.cn/20251110/e0f9050228d746f798972085696526d4/c.html","id":"II-S026","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"actor_reach_claim","primary_use":"Claimed global bureau footprint and production network","limitation":"First-party count; bureaus do not establish consumption or effect","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D04"]},{"source_id":"II-S027","publisher":"PRC Ministry of Commerce","title":"National cultural export key enterprises and projects","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"PRC cultural industries","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"State-supported cultural-export capacity and mechanisms","known_limitations":"Selection and export status establish supply, not affinity or behavior","url":"https://www.mofcom.gov.cn/xwfb/rcxwfb/art/2025/art_a3d5cc1d51e9482eb44931d8b0bd1ea2.html","id":"II-S027","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"official_output_register","primary_use":"State-supported cultural-export capacity and mechanisms","limitation":"Selection and export status establish supply, not affinity or behavior","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S028","publisher":"PRC Ministry of Education","title":"Chinese language learning and digital education platform report","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"T4","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC Ministry of Education","actor_coverage":"Foreign learners","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Language-learning access and participation claims","known_limitations":"First-party participation figures; no matched retention or preference effects","url":"https://hudong.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/s5147/202504/t20250401_1185738.html","id":"II-S028","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"actor_output_claim","primary_use":"Language-learning access and participation claims","limitation":"First-party participation figures; no matched retention or preference effects","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S029","publisher":"State Council of the PRC","title":"Visa-free entry statistics","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC government","actor_coverage":"Foreign visitors to China","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["attention"],"primary_uses":"Observed travel growth as cultural-contact input","known_limitations":"Entry counts mix business, transit, and tourism and do not prove affinity","url":"https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/statistics/202507/23/content_WS68809ee1c6d0868f4e8f45fb.html","id":"II-S029","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"official_administrative_output","primary_use":"Observed travel growth as cultural-contact input","limitation":"Entry counts mix business, transit, and tourism and do not prove affinity","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S030","publisher":"State Council Information Office","title":"China audiovisual exports report","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"T4","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"Foreign audiovisual markets","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Export and distribution growth","known_limitations":"First-party output and audience claims do not establish durable influence","url":"https://english.scio.gov.cn/m/pressroom/2025-09/26/content_118099445.html","id":"II-S030","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"actor_output_claim","primary_use":"Export and distribution growth","limitation":"First-party output and audience claims do not establish durable influence","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S031","publisher":"PRC Ministry of Commerce","title":"Games and cultural exports report","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"T4","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"Foreign cultural markets","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Commercial cultural export growth","known_limitations":"Revenue and downloads are exposure/market success, not affinity or behavior","url":"https://chinaipr.mofcom.gov.cn/article/centralgovernment/202603/1995577.html","id":"II-S031","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"actor_output_claim","primary_use":"Commercial cultural export growth","limitation":"Revenue and downloads are exposure/market success, not affinity or behavior","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S032","publisher":"China Film Administration","title":"Chinese film international distribution report","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"T4","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"Foreign film audiences","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Film production and international-distribution input","known_limitations":"State report; box office and screenings do not prove preference change","url":"https://www.chinafilm.gov.cn/xwzx/gzdt/202510/t20251024_936523.html","id":"II-S032","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"actor_output_claim","primary_use":"Film production and international-distribution input","limitation":"State report; box office and screenings do not prove preference change","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S033","publisher":"PRC National Development and Reform Commission","title":"Cultural industry and export development report","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"T4","evidence_role":"official_primary_or_output","institutional_family":"PRC party-state","actor_coverage":"PRC cultural industries","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Industry-policy and export capacity","known_limitations":"Input and policy evidence only","url":"https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/wsdwhfz/202605/t20260526_1405491.html","id":"II-S033","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"actor_output_claim","primary_use":"Industry-policy and export capacity","limitation":"Input and policy evidence only","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S034","publisher":"Pew Research Center","title":"People in many countries now view China more positively than the U.S.","date_or_version":"2026-07-15; fieldwork 2026-02-08 to 2026-05-13","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Pew Research Center","actor_coverage":"42,151 adults in 36 countries","capability_ids":"II-D05|II-D06|II-D07","causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Matched favorability, leader confidence, freedoms, reliability, and foreign-policy perceptions","known_limitations":"Country favorability and leader views are not source-specific trust or causal message effects; rapid policy sensitivity","url":"https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many-countries-now-view-china-more-positively-than-the-u-s/","id":"II-S034","date":"2026-07-15; fieldwork 2026-02-08 to 2026-05-13","research_evidence_role":"independent_comparative_survey","primary_use":"Matched favorability, leader confidence, freedoms, reliability, and foreign-policy perceptions","limitation":"Country favorability and leader views are not source-specific trust or causal message effects; rapid policy sensitivity","category_ids":["II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S035","publisher":"Gallup","title":"China edges past U.S. in global approval ratings","date_or_version":"2026-04-03; 2025 surveys","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Gallup World Poll","actor_coverage":"More than 130 countries","capability_ids":"II-D05|II-D07","causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Matched global leadership approval and disapproval trends","known_limitations":"Leadership approval is policy- and leader-sensitive and not source-specific credibility","url":"https://news.gallup.com/poll/707945/china-edges-past-global-approval-ratings.aspx","id":"II-S035","date":"2026-04-03; 2025 surveys","research_evidence_role":"independent_comparative_survey","primary_use":"Matched global leadership approval and disapproval trends","limitation":"Leadership approval is policy- and leader-sensitive and not source-specific credibility","category_ids":["II-D05","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S036","publisher":"Brand Finance","title":"Global Soft Power Index 2026 executive summary","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Brand Finance","actor_coverage":"Global respondent sample","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D05|II-D06","causal_stages":["attention","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Familiarity, influence, reputation, arts, media, and education comparisons","known_limitations":"Proprietary weights and broad nation-brand constructs; composite is not adopted","url":"https://brandfinance.com/insights/global-soft-power-index-2026-executive-summary","id":"II-S036","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"proprietary_comparative_survey","primary_use":"Familiarity, influence, reputation, arts, media, and education comparisons","limitation":"Proprietary weights and broad nation-brand constructs; composite is not adopted","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S037","publisher":"Brand Finance","title":"Global Soft Power Index 2026 full report","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Brand Finance","actor_coverage":"Global respondent sample","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D05|II-D06","causal_stages":["attention","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Underlying indicator and regional context","known_limitations":"Proprietary weighting and construct overlap limit causal use","url":"https://static.brandirectory.com/reports/brand-finance-soft-power-index-2026-digital.pdf","id":"II-S037","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"proprietary_method_and_results","primary_use":"Underlying indicator and regional context","limitation":"Proprietary weighting and construct overlap limit causal use","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S038","publisher":"ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute","title":"State of Southeast Asia 2026 Survey","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"ISEAS","actor_coverage":"Southeast Asian opinion leaders","capability_ids":"II-D05|II-D06|II-D07","causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior"],"primary_uses":"Alignment preference, perceived influence, work/live/travel preference, concern, and trust","known_limitations":"Nonprobability elite/opinion-leader sample; hypothetical alignment is not state behavior","url":"https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/The-State-of-Southeast-Asia-2026-Survey-Final-Single.pdf","id":"II-S038","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"independent_regional_elite_survey","primary_use":"Alignment preference, perceived influence, work/live/travel preference, concern, and trust","limitation":"Nonprobability elite/opinion-leader sample; hypothetical alignment is not state behavior","category_ids":["II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S039","publisher":"Lowy Institute","title":"Asia Power Index: Cultural influence","date_or_version":"2025 edition","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Lowy Institute","actor_coverage":"27 Indo-Pacific actors","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Matched cultural projection and information-flow indicators","known_limitations":"Composite mixes inputs, flows, and attraction; weights are not adopted","url":"https://power.lowyinstitute.org/explore/cultural-influence/","id":"II-S039","date":"2025 edition","research_evidence_role":"independent_composite_reference","primary_use":"Matched cultural projection and information-flow indicators","limitation":"Composite mixes inputs, flows, and attraction; weights are not adopted","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S040","publisher":"Lowy Institute","title":"Asia Power Index methodology","date_or_version":"2025 edition","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Lowy Institute","actor_coverage":"27 Indo-Pacific actors","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Definitions, indicators, normalization, and weights","known_limitations":"Regional and composite design; not a causal influence model","url":"https://power.lowyinstitute.org/methodology/","id":"II-S040","date":"2025 edition","research_evidence_role":"independent_method","primary_use":"Definitions, indicators, normalization, and weights","limitation":"Regional and composite design; not a causal influence model","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S041","publisher":"Institute of International Education","title":"Open Doors 2025 press release","date_or_version":"2025; academic year 2024/25","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"IIE Open Doors","actor_coverage":"International students in the United States","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["attention","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Revealed study destination and trend evidence","known_limitations":"Study choice has many economic, visa, capacity, and career causes; one-sided comparator","url":"https://www.iie.org/news/open-doors-2025-press-release/","id":"II-S041","date":"2025; academic year 2024/25","research_evidence_role":"independent_administrative_synthesis","primary_use":"Revealed study destination and trend evidence","limitation":"Study choice has many economic, visa, capacity, and career causes; one-sided comparator","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S042","publisher":"Duolingo","title":"2025 Duolingo Language Report","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 3","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"Duolingo","actor_coverage":"Platform learners worldwide","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["attention","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Observed language-learning choices and growth","known_limitations":"Platform users are not population representative; English utility is not solely U.S. influence","url":"https://blog.duolingo.com/2025-duolingo-language-report/","id":"II-S042","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"platform_behavior_report","primary_use":"Observed language-learning choices and growth","limitation":"Platform users are not population representative; English utility is not solely U.S. influence","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S043","publisher":"OECD","title":"Education at a Glance 2025","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"intergovernmental_data_or_analysis","institutional_family":"OECD","actor_coverage":"International education systems","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["attention","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Student mobility and destination-system context","known_limitations":"Education mobility reflects costs, capacity, migration policy, and labor markets","url":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2025_1c0d9c79-en.html","id":"II-S043","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"intergovernmental_comparative_data","primary_use":"Student mobility and destination-system context","limitation":"Education mobility reflects costs, capacity, migration policy, and labor markets","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S044","publisher":"UNESCO","title":"Tracking the global flow of cultural goods and services","date_or_version":"current page accessed 2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"intergovernmental_data_or_analysis","institutional_family":"UNESCO","actor_coverage":"Global cultural trade","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Cultural-goods flows and measurement definitions","known_limitations":"Trade does not establish reception, affinity, or policy effect","url":"https://www.unesco.org/en/reshaping-creativity-reports/tracking-cultural-goods","id":"II-S044","date":"current page accessed 2026","research_evidence_role":"intergovernmental_comparative_data","primary_use":"Cultural-goods flows and measurement definitions","limitation":"Trade does not establish reception, affinity, or policy effect","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S045","publisher":"World Intellectual Property Organization","title":"Creative goods exports indicator","date_or_version":"current through 2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"intergovernmental_data_or_analysis","institutional_family":"WIPO","actor_coverage":"Global economies","capability_ids":"II-D06","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Comparable creative-goods export input","known_limitations":"Export value does not identify cultural source recognition or influence","url":"https://www.wipo.int/gii-ranking/en/indicators/724?dir=DESC&sort=trend","id":"II-S045","date":"current through 2025","research_evidence_role":"intergovernmental_comparative_data","primary_use":"Comparable creative-goods export input","limitation":"Export value does not identify cultural source recognition or influence","category_ids":["II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S046","publisher":"AidData","title":"Influencing the Narrative: How the Chinese government mobilizes students and media to burnish its image","date_or_version":"2021","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"AidData","actor_coverage":"East Asia and Pacific countries","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D05|II-D07","causal_stages":["attention","credibility","affinity_or_preference","decision_or_behavior"],"primary_uses":"Content-sharing associations with approval and UN-vote tests","known_limitations":"Observational design, regional scope, and content-sharing endogeneity; no systematic UN-vote relationship","url":"https://docs.aiddata.org/ad4/pdfs/Influencing_the_Narrative_Report.pdf","id":"II-S046","date":"2021","research_evidence_role":"independent_statistical_research","primary_use":"Content-sharing associations with approval and UN-vote tests","limitation":"Observational design, regional scope, and content-sharing endogeneity; no systematic UN-vote relationship","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S047","publisher":"AidData","title":"China's Global Public Diplomacy Dashboard, version 3","date_or_version":"current dataset","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"AidData","actor_coverage":"Global PRC public diplomacy","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D06","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Program, exchange, finance, and public-diplomacy activity mapping","known_limitations":"Activity and estimated exposure do not establish causal effect","url":"https://www.aiddata.org/data/chinas-global-public-diplomacy-dashboard-dataset-version-3","id":"II-S047","date":"current dataset","research_evidence_role":"independent_dataset","primary_use":"Program, exchange, finance, and public-diplomacy activity mapping","limitation":"Activity and estimated exposure do not establish causal effect","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S048","publisher":"AidData","title":"Corridors of Power","date_or_version":"2021","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"AidData","actor_coverage":"South and Central Asia","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D05|II-D06|II-D07","causal_stages":["attention","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"PRC public-diplomacy exposure and elite/public perceptions","known_limitations":"Regional observational evidence; material projects confound informational effects","url":"https://docs.aiddata.org/reports/corridors-of-power.html","id":"II-S048","date":"2021","research_evidence_role":"independent_research","primary_use":"PRC public-diplomacy exposure and elite/public perceptions","limitation":"Regional observational evidence; material projects confound informational effects","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S049","publisher":"Mattingly et al.","title":"Chinese state media persuades a global audience that the China model is superior","date_or_version":"2024","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Academic research team","actor_coverage":"Respondents in 19 countries","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D03|II-D05|II-D07","causal_stages":["comprehension","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Causal effect of representative CGTN and U.S. message exposure on model preference","known_limitations":"Experimental forced exposure, short horizon, low real-world CGTN viewing, and attitude rather than behavior","url":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12887","id":"II-S049","date":"2024","research_evidence_role":"preregistered_multicountry_experiment","primary_use":"Causal effect of representative CGTN and U.S. message exposure on model preference","limitation":"Experimental forced exposure, short horizon, low real-world CGTN viewing, and attitude rather than behavior","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D05","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S050","publisher":"Political Science Research and Methods","title":"When does public diplomacy work? Evidence from China's wolf-warrior diplomats","date_or_version":"2024","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Academic research team","actor_coverage":"Indian respondents","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D03|II-D05|II-D07","causal_stages":["comprehension","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Positive versus negative PRC diplomatic-message effects after a border clash","known_limitations":"One-country survey experiment and short-run attitudes, not persistent behavior","url":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/when-does-public-diplomacy-work-evidence-from-chinas-wolf-warrior-diplomats/7C36B5891C2A1A7769F936D5F389A9F6","id":"II-S050","date":"2024","research_evidence_role":"preregistered_experiment","primary_use":"Positive versus negative PRC diplomatic-message effects after a border clash","limitation":"One-country survey experiment and short-run attitudes, not persistent behavior","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D05","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S051","publisher":"Perspectives on Politics","title":"The sound of silence: Championing democracy in an authoritarian society","date_or_version":"2024","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Academic research team","actor_coverage":"PRC respondents","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D03|II-D05|II-D07","causal_stages":["comprehension","credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Conditions under which U.S. embassy democracy messaging changes attitudes","known_limitations":"One-country, sensitive survey, treatment setting, and attitude outcome","url":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/sound-of-silence-championing-democracy-in-an-authoritarian-society/8C61A22C16E67151532D6C9909AA74C6","id":"II-S051","date":"2024","research_evidence_role":"survey_experiment","primary_use":"Conditions under which U.S. embassy democracy messaging changes attitudes","limitation":"One-country, sensitive survey, treatment setting, and attitude outcome","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D05","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S052","publisher":"Freedom House","title":"Beijing's Global Media Influence 2022","date_or_version":"2022","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Freedom House","actor_coverage":"30 countries","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D03|II-D04|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"PRC media influence tactics, localization, resilience, and country cases","known_limitations":"Coverage ends 2021; qualitative coding and democracy-focused lens; not a current effects panel","url":"https://freedomhouse.org/report/beijing-global-media-influence/2022/authoritarian-expansion-power-democratic-resilience","id":"II-S052","date":"2022","research_evidence_role":"independent_multicountry_research","primary_use":"PRC media influence tactics, localization, resilience, and country cases","limitation":"Coverage ends 2021; qualitative coding and democracy-focused lens; not a current effects panel","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D03","II-D04","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S053","publisher":"Freedom House","title":"Beijing's Global Media Influence methodology","date_or_version":"2022","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Freedom House","actor_coverage":"30 countries","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D04|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Coding, country selection, and comparative limits","known_limitations":"Method supports tactic/resilience comparison, not causal persuasion estimates","url":"https://freedomhouse.org/fr/node/5513","id":"II-S053","date":"2022","research_evidence_role":"independent_method","primary_use":"Coding, country selection, and comparative limits","limitation":"Method supports tactic/resilience comparison, not causal persuasion estimates","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D04","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S054","publisher":"Freedom House","title":"Freedom on the Net 2025: China","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Freedom House","actor_coverage":"PRC information environment","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Access barriers, censorship, manipulation, and integrity costs","known_limitations":"Expert-coded country assessment; domestic access is an enabler/constraint, not external influence outcome","url":"https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-net/2025","id":"II-S054","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"independent_country_assessment","primary_use":"Access barriers, censorship, manipulation, and integrity costs","limitation":"Expert-coded country assessment; domestic access is an enabler/constraint, not external influence outcome","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S055","publisher":"Freedom House","title":"Freedom on the Net 2025: United States","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Freedom House","actor_coverage":"U.S. information environment","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability"],"primary_uses":"Matched domestic information-environment comparison","known_limitations":"Domestic freedom does not automatically yield foreign influence","url":"https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-net/2025","id":"II-S055","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"independent_country_assessment","primary_use":"Matched domestic information-environment comparison","limitation":"Domestic freedom does not automatically yield foreign influence","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S056","publisher":"Reporters Without Borders","title":"China country profile and World Press Freedom Index","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"RSF","actor_coverage":"PRC media environment","capability_ids":"II-D05|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","credibility"],"primary_uses":"Press-freedom and journalist-safety context","known_limitations":"Domestic freedom index is not a source-specific foreign credibility measure","url":"https://rsf.org/en/country/china","id":"II-S056","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"independent_country_assessment","primary_use":"Press-freedom and journalist-safety context","limitation":"Domestic freedom index is not a source-specific foreign credibility measure","category_ids":["II-D05","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S057","publisher":"Reporters Without Borders","title":"United States country profile and World Press Freedom Index","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"RSF","actor_coverage":"U.S. media environment","capability_ids":"II-D05|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","credibility"],"primary_uses":"Matched press-freedom context","known_limitations":"Domestic freedom index does not establish foreign source trust","url":"https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states","id":"II-S057","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"independent_country_assessment","primary_use":"Matched press-freedom context","limitation":"Domestic freedom index does not establish foreign source trust","category_ids":["II-D05","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S058","publisher":"Google Threat Analysis Group","title":"New efforts to disrupt DRAGONBRIDGE spam activity","date_or_version":"2024","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"Google","actor_coverage":"PRC-linked influence operation on Google platforms","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D04|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Output scale, takedowns, and exceptionally low organic engagement","known_limitations":"Platform-specific actor attribution; disrupted accounts are selected and do not represent all channels","url":"https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/google-disrupted-dragonbridge-activity-q1-2024/","id":"II-S058","date":"2024","research_evidence_role":"platform_threat_report","primary_use":"Output scale, takedowns, and exceptionally low organic engagement","limitation":"Platform-specific actor attribution; disrupted accounts are selected and do not represent all channels","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D04","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S059","publisher":"Google Threat Analysis Group","title":"TAG Bulletin Q2 2025","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"Google","actor_coverage":"Multiple state-linked operations","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Current disruption and attribution evidence","known_limitations":"Platform-specific removal counts are not population exposure or defender-effect estimates","url":"https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/tag-bulletin-q2-2025/","id":"II-S059","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"platform_threat_report","primary_use":"Current disruption and attribution evidence","limitation":"Platform-specific removal counts are not population exposure or defender-effect estimates","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S060","publisher":"Meta","title":"Removing coordinated inauthentic behavior from China and Russia","date_or_version":"2022","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"Meta","actor_coverage":"PRC- and Russia-linked operations","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D04|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Cross-platform tactics, attribution, and engagement","known_limitations":"Platform-specific, selected detected operations, and company-authored","url":"https://about.fb.com/news/2022/09/removing-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-from-china-and-russia/","id":"II-S060","date":"2022","research_evidence_role":"platform_threat_report","primary_use":"Cross-platform tactics, attribution, and engagement","limitation":"Platform-specific, selected detected operations, and company-authored","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D04","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S061","publisher":"Microsoft","title":"Microsoft Digital Defense Report 2025","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"Microsoft","actor_coverage":"Global state influence activity","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"AI-enabled influence tactics, detection, and ecosystem trends","known_limitations":"Vendor visibility is platform- and customer-dependent; campaign effects rarely causal","url":"https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/cybersecurity/microsoft-digital-defense-report-2025/","id":"II-S061","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"industry_threat_report","primary_use":"AI-enabled influence tactics, detection, and ecosystem trends","limitation":"Vendor visibility is platform- and customer-dependent; campaign effects rarely causal","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S062","publisher":"OpenAI","title":"Disrupting PRC-linked influence operations using AI in U.S. policy debates","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"OpenAI","actor_coverage":"Two PRC-linked covert clusters","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"AI-enabled content production, attribution, and lack of observed breakout","known_limitations":"OpenAI-service visibility only; no claim about all platforms or offline effects","url":"https://openai.com/index/prc-linked-influence-operations-ai-debates/","id":"II-S062","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"platform_threat_report","primary_use":"AI-enabled content production, attribution, and lack of observed breakout","limitation":"OpenAI-service visibility only; no claim about all platforms or offline effects","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S063","publisher":"OpenAI","title":"Disrupting malicious uses of AI: 2025 report","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"OpenAI","actor_coverage":"Multiple state and nonstate actors","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Cross-actor tactics and limits of AI amplification","known_limitations":"Detected accounts are selected and platform-specific; activity is not influence","url":"https://openai.com/global-affairs/disrupting-malicious-uses-of-ai/","id":"II-S063","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"platform_threat_report","primary_use":"Cross-actor tactics and limits of AI amplification","limitation":"Detected accounts are selected and platform-specific; activity is not influence","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D08"]},{"source_id":"II-S064","publisher":"Reuters Institute","title":"Digital News Report 2026 executive summary","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"Reuters Institute","actor_coverage":"Multiple national news markets","capability_ids":"II-D04|II-D05","causal_stages":["attention","credibility"],"primary_uses":"News access, platform use, and domestic news trust context","known_limitations":"Domestic news trust is not a matched U.S.-versus-PRC foreign-source comparison","url":"https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2026/dnr-executive-summary","id":"II-S064","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"independent_news_survey","primary_use":"News access, platform use, and domestic news trust context","limitation":"Domestic news trust is not a matched U.S.-versus-PRC foreign-source comparison","category_ids":["II-D04","II-D05"]},{"source_id":"II-S065","publisher":"Afrobarometer","title":"African views on international influence and decision-making","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Afrobarometer","actor_coverage":"African publics","capability_ids":"II-D05|II-D07","causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Regional demand, agency, and external-power perceptions","known_limitations":"Question wording and country waves vary; attitudes do not establish message effects","url":"https://www.afrobarometer.org/articles/africa-day-majority-of-africans-say-african-countries-should-be-given-greater-influence-in-international-decision-making-bodies/","id":"II-S065","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"independent_regional_survey","primary_use":"Regional demand, agency, and external-power perceptions","limitation":"Question wording and country waves vary; attitudes do not establish message effects","category_ids":["II-D05","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S066","publisher":"Arab Barometer","title":"Public views of the United States and China in MENA","date_or_version":"2024 report","evidence_tier":"Tier 1","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Arab Barometer","actor_coverage":"Middle East and North Africa publics","capability_ids":"II-D05|II-D06|II-D07","causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Regional favorability, policy, and economic-perception context","known_limitations":"Country coverage and timing differ; policy and material relations confound informational effect","url":"https://www.arabbarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/ABVII_US-China_Report-EN-1.pdf","id":"II-S066","date":"2024 report","research_evidence_role":"independent_regional_survey","primary_use":"Regional favorability, policy, and economic-perception context","limitation":"Country coverage and timing differ; policy and material relations confound informational effect","category_ids":["II-D05","II-D06","II-D07"]},{"source_id":"II-S067","publisher":"Arab Barometer","title":"Aid cuts and U.S. soft power in the Middle East","date_or_version":"2025","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_research","institutional_family":"Arab Barometer","actor_coverage":"Middle East publics","capability_ids":"II-D02|II-D05|II-D06","causal_stages":["credibility","affinity_or_preference"],"primary_uses":"Policy-message alignment and current reputation risk","known_limitations":"Analysis links policy and survey context but does not isolate information effects","url":"https://www.arabbarometer.org/2025/03/trumps-aid-cuts-sever-stalwart-of-u-s-soft-power-in-the-middle-east/","id":"II-S067","date":"2025","research_evidence_role":"independent_analysis","primary_use":"Policy-message alignment and current reputation risk","limitation":"Analysis links policy and survey context but does not isolate information effects","category_ids":["II-D02","II-D05","II-D06"]},{"source_id":"II-S068","publisher":"Associated Press","title":"PRC-linked AI content production and influence reporting","date_or_version":"2026","evidence_tier":"Tier 2","evidence_role":"independent_reporting","institutional_family":"Associated Press","actor_coverage":"PRC-linked global content operations","capability_ids":"II-D03|II-D08","causal_stages":["availability","attention"],"primary_uses":"Current content automation, localization, and attribution","known_limitations":"Investigative cases are not a representative performance sample","url":"https://apnews.com/article/8b74148007a3906cef85534eead1d7c8","id":"II-S068","date":"2026","research_evidence_role":"independent_investigative_reporting","primary_use":"Current content automation, localization, and attribution","limitation":"Investigative cases are not a representative performance sample","category_ids":["II-D03","II-D08"]}],"review":{"type":"internal adversarial analytical review; not external peer review or an intelligence assessment","disclosure":"This is a structured internal challenge and sensitivity review, not external peer review or government validation.","ruling":"The asymmetric nine-capability profile survives internal adversarial review. No lead and no overall domain winner are defensible.","hypotheses":[{"id":"II-H01","claim":"The U.S. system understands foreign audiences better because it publishes more research, polling, evaluations, and failures.","status":"rejected_as_comparative_claim","strongest_alternative":"The public difference measures transparency rather than insight accuracy; PRC internal research may be extensive but undisclosed.","disconfirming_evidence":"A matched portfolio of preregistered forecasts, later validation, documented planning changes, and downstream gains for both systems.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["A matched portfolio of preregistered forecasts, later validation, documented planning changes, and downstream gains for both systems."],"adjudication":"II-D01 remains Insufficient comparative basis. U.S. transparency is credited as an integrity and observability feature, not as proof of superior audience understanding.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S001","II-S002","II-S014","II-S016","II-S017","II-S020","II-S023"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C02","II-C27"],"observation_ids":["II-O001","II-O003","II-O004","II-O006"]}},{"id":"II-H02","claim":"PRC centralization makes its narrative policy categorically superior.","status":"narrowed_to_edge","strongest_alternative":"Centralization produces visible consistency by suppressing contradiction and dissent, while policy appeal and censorship—not narrative skill—explain observed effects.","disconfirming_evidence":"Matched crisis coding showing higher PRC claim-conduct contradiction, concealment, backfire, or failed repair than the U.S. system.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["Matched crisis coding showing higher PRC claim-conduct contradiction, concealment, backfire, or failed repair than the U.S. system."],"adjudication":"II-D02 is a low-confidence PRC-centered edge, not a lead. Positive alignment and persuasion evidence survives, but wolf-warrior backfire, integrity costs, and missing contradiction data sharply bound it.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S020","II-S021","II-S023","II-S034","II-S049","II-S050"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C20","II-C21"],"observation_ids":["II-O007","II-O009","II-O010","II-O011","II-O012"]}},{"id":"II-H03","claim":"The system that produces the most multilingual content fastest has superior content agility.","status":"rejected","strongest_alternative":"High output can be inaccurate, poorly localized, automated, duplicated, or unseen; useful agility requires quality, correction, and priority-audience uptake within the decision window.","disconfirming_evidence":"Matched event-level latency, localization validation, error correction, and qualified uptake favoring one system.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["Matched event-level latency, localization validation, error correction, and qualified uptake favoring one system."],"adjudication":"II-D03 is Contested. DRAGONBRIDGE is a critical negative case against volume-based judgment.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S010","II-S025","II-S026","II-S049","II-S050","II-S058","II-S062"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C11","II-C12","II-C16","II-C26"],"observation_ids":["II-O013","II-O014","II-O015","II-O018"]}},{"id":"II-H04","claim":"CGTN countries, Xinhua bureaus, followers, and PRC content-sharing agreements erase the U.S. reach advantage.","status":"not_supported_at_decisive_stage","strongest_alternative":"The PRC figures measure potential supply and activity, while the U.S. total measures unduplicated weekly human consumption under a documented survey method.","disconfirming_evidence":"Independent, current, unduplicated PRC consumption in matched priority audiences at or above the U.S.-anchored system.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["Independent, current, unduplicated PRC consumption in matched priority audiences at or above the U.S.-anchored system."],"adjudication":"II-D04 remains a low-confidence U.S./partner edge. It can fall to Contested quickly if post-2025 U.S. reach declines or a comparable PRC audience series appears.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S010","II-S013","II-S014","II-S015","II-S025","II-S026","II-S046"],"case_ids":["II-C11","II-C12","II-C13","II-C29"],"observation_ids":["II-O019","II-O020","II-O021","II-O023","II-O024"]}},{"id":"II-H05","claim":"China's current global reputation advantage proves superior credibility and trust.","status":"rejected_as_full_category_claim","strongest_alternative":"Pew and Gallup measure country and leadership evaluation driven heavily by current policy and leaders, not trust in named information sources or messengers.","disconfirming_evidence":"Matched source-specific trust and crisis-reliance measures that converge with the reputation result across regions.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["Matched source-specific trust and crisis-reliance measures that converge with the reputation result across regions."],"adjudication":"II-D05 is Contested. Current reputation is a real PRC strength and operating condition but does not overcome U.S./partner integrity and messenger counterevidence or regional exceptions.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S036","II-S049","II-S054","II-S055","II-S056","II-S057"],"case_ids":["II-C06","II-C18","II-C19"],"observation_ids":["II-O025","II-O026","II-O027","II-O029","II-O030"]}},{"id":"II-H06","claim":"U.S. cultural popularity proves a durable statecraft lead over China.","status":"narrowed_to_edge","strongest_alternative":"English utility, commercial scale, independent production, visa and education capacity, cost, and labor-market returns explain much observed attraction; these assets are not fully government-taskable.","disconfirming_evidence":"Contact-to-affinity and revealed-choice models that remove noncultural drivers and show no U.S. advantage or a PRC advantage across regions.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["Contact-to-affinity and revealed-choice models that remove noncultural drivers and show no U.S. advantage or a PRC advantage across regions."],"adjudication":"II-D06 is a U.S./partner edge, not a lead. Multiple independent and behavioral proxies converge, but attribution and rapid PRC growth prevent a stronger call.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S036","II-S038","II-S039","II-S041","II-S042","II-S043","II-S027","II-S030","II-S031"],"case_ids":["II-C07","II-C08","II-C09","II-C10"],"observation_ids":["II-O031","II-O033","II-O034","II-O035","II-O036"]}},{"id":"II-H07","claim":"Experimental attitude shifts demonstrate national-system influence conversion.","status":"rejected_beyond_attitudes","strongest_alternative":"Forced exposure and selected messages produce short-run survey responses that may not survive natural attention, cost, countermessage, or translate into decisions and behavior.","disconfirming_evidence":"Matched natural-exposure studies with preregistered objectives, consequential behavior, rival-cause controls, and persistence.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["Matched natural-exposure studies with preregistered objectives, consequential behavior, rival-cause controls, and persistence."],"adjudication":"II-D07 remains Insufficient comparative basis. The experiments are admitted as real attitude-conversion evidence and explicitly prevented from carrying the behavioral category.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S046","II-S049","II-S050","II-S051"],"case_ids":["II-C03","II-C04","II-C05","II-C13","II-C28"],"observation_ids":["II-O037","II-O038","II-O039","II-O040","II-O041","II-O042"]}},{"id":"II-H08","claim":"Large platform takedown totals prove a U.S. counter-influence advantage.","status":"rejected_as_outcome_claim","strongest_alternative":"Platforms may be observing large numbers of already ineffective accounts; totals omit missed operations, false positives, counterfactual exposure, belief correction, and rights costs.","disconfirming_evidence":"A common attack-set evaluation showing defender-caused exposure reduction and recovery with low false-positive and rights costs.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["A common attack-set evaluation showing defender-caused exposure reduction and recovery with low false-positive and rights costs."],"adjudication":"II-D08 is Contested. U.S. transparent detection is a component edge, not a full-category edge.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S058","II-S059","II-S060","II-S061","II-S062","II-S063"],"case_ids":["II-C16","II-C17","II-C30"],"observation_ids":["II-O043","II-O044","II-O045","II-O048"]}},{"id":"II-H09","claim":"PRC censorship and blocking prove superior counter-influence because adversary messages cannot penetrate.","status":"rejected","strongest_alternative":"Suppression can reduce availability while increasing false positives, blocking truthful information, degrading feedback and trust, and imposing legitimacy and rights costs.","disconfirming_evidence":"A common threat set showing better belief accuracy, lower harmful exposure, recovery, and bounded protected-expression costs under PRC controls.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["A common threat set showing better belief accuracy, lower harmful exposure, recovery, and bounded protected-expression costs under PRC controls."],"adjudication":"Access denial is a PRC component strength but is not coded as information integrity or a category edge.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S024","II-S054","II-S056"],"case_ids":["II-C18","II-C30"],"observation_ids":["II-O046","II-O048"]}},{"id":"II-H10","claim":"More public evaluation and performance reporting proves superior U.S. learning and adaptation.","status":"rejected_as_comparative_claim","strongest_alternative":"The documents show transparency and measurement capacity, not that findings changed designs or produced better repeated outcomes; PRC internal learning may be undisclosed.","disconfirming_evidence":"Matched repeated campaign cycles linking valid findings, design changes, failure retention, and improved downstream effect.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["Matched repeated campaign cycles linking valid findings, design changes, failure retention, and improved downstream effect."],"adjudication":"II-D09 remains Insufficient comparative basis. U.S. transparency is separately noted and PRC opacity is not treated as zero learning.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S002","II-S006","II-S007","II-S010","II-S014","II-S016","II-S017","II-S020","II-S023"],"case_ids":["II-C01","II-C02","II-C27"],"observation_ids":["II-O049","II-O050","II-O051","II-O052","II-O053","II-O054"]}},{"id":"II-H11","claim":"The four DIME instruments are complete once nine information capabilities receive axis positions.","status":"rejected","strongest_alternative":"A complete domain can contain explicit unknowns; forcing every capability onto an axis would manufacture precision and corrupt later cross-domain synthesis.","disconfirming_evidence":"Comparable decisive-stage evidence for Information Understanding, Influence Conversion, and Learning & Adaptation.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["Comparable decisive-stage evidence for Information Understanding, Influence Conversion, and Learning & Adaptation."],"adjudication":"The domain is analytically complete with three directional positions, three Contested positions, and three unscored positions. Completion describes the audit, not universal certainty.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S002","II-S010","II-S020","II-S034","II-S046","II-S049"],"case_ids":["II-C27","II-C28","II-C30"],"observation_ids":["II-O006","II-O042","II-O054"]}},{"id":"II-H12","claim":"An overall information-power winner can be inferred by counting directional positions.","status":"rejected","strongest_alternative":"Capabilities sit at different causal stages, use different units and confidence, and do not substitute for each other. An upstream edge can fail to convert downstream.","disconfirming_evidence":"A validated causal model showing commensurable weights, substitution, interaction, conversion, and outcome relevance across the nine capabilities.","open_gaps":"The linked capability trace identifies the remaining public-evidence gaps.","required_tests":["A validated causal model showing commensurable weights, substitution, interaction, conversion, and outcome relevance across the nine capabilities."],"adjudication":"No domain composite or winner is calculated. The asymmetric profile is the substantive finding.","trace":{"source_ids":["II-S034","II-S035","II-S036","II-S038","II-S046","II-S049"],"case_ids":["II-C06","II-C07","II-C28","II-C29","II-C30"],"observation_ids":["II-O012","II-O024","II-O030","II-O036","II-O042","II-O048"]}}],"cross_cutting_alternatives":[{"id":"II-A01","name":"Policy-performance substitution","claim":"Foreign audiences respond to war, aid, trade, migration, reliability, and government conduct; communication mostly transmits policy performance created in other domains."},{"id":"II-A02","name":"Material-incentive confounding","claim":"Market access, finance, coercion, security, education capacity, and career returns explain preference and behavior more than narratives or culture."},{"id":"II-A03","name":"Leader and administration shock","claim":"Current U.S.-PRC reputation differences reflect particular leaders and short-run policy changes rather than durable information-system capability."},{"id":"II-A04","name":"Observability asymmetry","claim":"Open U.S. institutions disclose failures and methods, while PRC institutions suppress criticism and publish successes, biasing both negative and positive evidence."},{"id":"II-A05","name":"Independent-ecosystem attribution","claim":"U.S. media, culture, technology, universities, and civil society create national influence without being government-created or taskable."},{"id":"II-A06","name":"Selection and exposure bias","claim":"Experiments force exposure, platform reports select detected operations, program evaluations select participants, and famous campaigns overrepresent observable cases."},{"id":"II-A07","name":"Language and platform structure","claim":"English utility, platform dominance, market scale, and internet access produce reach and cultural preference independently of statecraft quality."},{"id":"II-A08","name":"Regional and issue heterogeneity","claim":"Audiences evaluate each actor differently by security, development, governance, culture, and local history; global positions may be aggregation artifacts."},{"id":"II-A09","name":"Coercion and censorship substitution","claim":"Apparent message consistency or low adversary penetration can result from suppression, not persuasion, trust, or resilient information integrity."},{"id":"II-A10","name":"Attitude-behavior gap","claim":"Survey favorability, recall, and experimental preference effects may never alter consequential decisions or survive cost and countermessage."},{"id":"II-A11","name":"Institutional-family correlation","claim":"Multiple government documents, platform reports, or index products from one family are not independent corroboration."},{"id":"II-A12","name":"Time-window mismatch","claim":"FY2024 U.S. reach, 2025 global polls, 2026 reputation, and older causal studies describe different systems and cannot be combined as one contemporaneous contest without qualification."}],"mandatory_audit_tests":["Information remains the instrument and influence remains an observed effect; the two terms are never collapsed.","Every observation is assigned to one causal stage, and downstream stages are never inferred from upstream availability or attention.","Potential availability, output, languages, posts, bureaus, followers, impressions, exports, and program enrollment remain inputs unless verified humans and effects are observed.","State-controlled, state-funded independent, partner, commercial, civil-society, cultural, educational, diaspora, and covert contributions retain separate attribution.","Independent U.S. ecosystem assets count as national informational power only with an explicit non-taskability caveat.","Partner contributions count only when observed, available, relevant, and timely in the case; alignment labels never pool them automatically.","Overt persuasion and covert or deceptive activity remain separate, with exposure, effect, attribution risk, legitimacy cost, and persistence recorded.","Cultural production, export revenue, popularity, awards, enrollment, or audience size establishes exposure, not cultural influence.","Country favorability, leadership approval, and nation-brand reputation remain contextual and never substitute automatically for source-specific credibility.","Censorship, blocking, or account removals do not establish counter-influence without detection quality, exposure reduction, false positives, rights cost, and recovery.","Adversary failure is not credited to a defender without evidence of defender contribution.","Evaluation volume and transparency do not establish learning without documented adjustment and improved repeated outcomes.","A weakness, disruption, or missing observation on one side never establishes an advantage for the other.","Insufficient comparative basis is used instead of Contested when positive evidence for both systems is absent at the decisive stage.","First-party sources establish doctrine, organization, activity, reported output, or actor claims; they do not independently establish trust, influence, or causal conversion.","Institutional-family correlation is controlled; citation counts are never treated as independent corroboration.","Matched claims use the same audience, region, issue, time, denominator, source type, causal stage, and method or disclose each mismatch.","Global findings survive Indo-Pacific, Europe, Africa, Middle East and North Africa, and Latin America and Caribbean sensitivity checks or are narrowed.","Current leader and policy effects are separated from durable system capability wherever the data permit.","No weighted score, position count, or implicit ladder produces an overall information-power winner."]},"publication":{"status":"published","date":"2026-08-13","assessment_current_through":"2026-08-13","review_type":"internal source, methods, adversarial, and editorial review","external_peer_review":false},"counts":{"categories":9,"scored_categories":6,"unscored_categories":3,"cases":30,"metrics":36,"observations":54,"sources":68,"review_hypotheses":12},"position_counts":{"partner":2,"contested":3,"competitor":1,"unscored":3},"overall_composite":null}