In-depth reporting, source verification, document analysis, FOI requests, investigative techniques for political accountability
Apply the AI FIRST principle: never accept first-pass quality. Minimum 2 iterations. Read all output, improve every section. No shortcuts.
Provides expertise in investigative journalism techniques for deep political accountability reporting. Covers source verification, document analysis, freedom of information (FOI) requests, data journalism, and ethical investigative practices for systematic transparency in Swedish governance.
Offentlighetsprincipen (Constitutional right to access public documents):
Protected Categories:
**Investigation: Ministry of Finance Real Estate Contracts**
**FOI Request Strategy**:
1. Initial request: "All contracts over 1 million SEK with real
estate companies, 2024-2025"
2. Response: 47 contracts totaling 890 million SEK
3. Follow-up: "All email correspondence regarding contracts
[specific IDs] with [specific companies]"
4. Response: Partial denial citing "ongoing negotiations"
5. Appeal: To Ombudsman, citing public interest override
**Document Analysis**:
- Contract [X]: No competitive bidding, sole-source award
- Company [Y]: Owned by former Ministry official (3 years ago)
- Contract value: 40% above market rates (per audit office data)
- Timeline: Award 2 weeks after official left government
**Verification**:
- Land registry: Confirmed company ownership
- Audit Office: Provided comparative pricing data
- Former Ministry colleagues: Confirmed relationship (anonymous)
- Company representative: No comment
- Ministry spokesperson: "All contracts followed proper procedures"
**Publication Decision**:
- Public interest: Clear (taxpayer money, potential conflict)
- Evidence: Strong (documents, comparative data, timeline)
- Right to reply: Exercised (Ministry, company, individual)
- Legal risk: Low (factual reporting, documented)
- Privacy: Former official is public figure, minimal privacy expectation
*Result: Published investigation with full document citations*
**Investigation: Voting Discipline Breach Pattern**
**Data Analysis**:
- Analyzed 2,487 Riksdag votes (2023-2025)
- Identified 12 MPs with >15% deviation from party line
- Focused on 3 MPs with systematic pattern in specific policy area
**Interview Process**:
- Background research on MPs' constituencies and donor relationships
- Initial contact: Open-ended questions about voting rationale
- Follow-up: Specific questions about industry connections
- Confidential sources: Two party insiders confirmed pressure
**Document Trail**:
- Committee minutes: Revealed close relationships with industry reps
- Meeting schedules: Frequent meetings with affected companies
- Campaign finance: Donations from industry PACs (legal but relevant)
**Analysis**:
- Pattern: All 3 MPs voted against party on regulations affecting donors
- Timeline: Votes correlated with campaign donation dates (+/- 30 days)
- Context: No principled explanation given, pattern suspicious
**Publication Considerations**:
- Public interest: High (accountability, potential undue influence)
- Evidence: Circumstantial but strong pattern
- Alternative explanations: MPs claim "constituency concerns"
- Balance: Present evidence, note alternative explanations
- Conclusion: Let readers judge, provide context
*Result: Published analysis with call for stronger disclosure rules*
Use this skill when: Conducting in-depth accountability investigations, filing FOI requests, analyzing documents and data for corruption patterns, verifying sources for major revelations, or navigating ethical boundaries in investigative reporting.