We scored sixteen camp-versus-camp narratives across eight fault lines for the week of July 20 to 26, 2026. Officials or major outlets carried seven of them. Our checks resolved one narrative against its own claim and left fifteen mixed, which is the most useful thing we can report about the week. Four of the five most charged were carried at official or major-outlet tier; a culture-war casting fight carried the fifth. Everything measured here is protected political speech.
Everything on this dashboard describes legitimate political expression. A narrative appearing here is not an accusation of hate, extremism, or bad conduct; it is a description of a framing pattern. Our separate hate methodology, with its own much higher bar, is reported in The Weather Report.
Our weekly hate report measures the narrow band of content that collectivizes, dehumanizes, or incites against groups of people. Most of the culture war never gets near that bar, and until now we had no way to measure it. This report is our first attempt: same week, same verification standard, different instrument.
We track framing contests. An event happens, and within hours commentators on each side stop arguing about the event and start arguing about what it reveals about the other camp's motives and character. We state each narrative's claim in a testable form, check the claim against its own internal logic, look for the mirror narrative on the other side, and score the whole contest for reach, intensity, penetration, elite adoption, and mirror lock. We also watch each narrative for seven specific markers that it is drifting toward the territory our hate methodology covers.
The immigration narrative holding that the opposing camp's leadership intends the country's destruction scored highest this week, at 3.9 of 5, and no narrative reached our top watch tier at all. Nine sit in the active tier and seven below it, with a median of 3.2. Officials or major outlets carried seven of the sixteen, including four of the five highest. That is a fact about the narratives we scored rather than a measurement of the whole discourse.
We tested each narrative's claim with checks we authored ourselves, and we say so: the predictions are our operationalisations of each frame, not the speaker's own stated test. One claim failed them. The frame holding that outlets apply the far-right label in bad faith, out of hostility rather than as description, was contradicted on all three predictions we drew from it. A sourced investigation published inside the window names individuals with far-right and neo-Nazi organisational histories active in or funding the party at the centre of the exchange, which the label having no descriptive basis would not predict. The denial was carried at length by the outlet accused, in the interview itself. And the term was put as a question the subject answered on the record, which is the ordinary shape of an interview rather than an assertion dressed as one. The other fifteen came back mixed, most of them because the checks landed on a frame's minimal reading and not on its strongest, or because the evidence available to us could not separate the two. We would rather report that than round it in either direction.
No mirror pair locked this week. Locking is the condition where each camp's narrative runs on the other's as its primary evidence, and what we found was engagement without that tightening: opposing frames were present and answerable, and none of them was built on the other side's worst voices.
Nothing crossed into our hate methodology's territory this week. Those gates run first on every item, as they always do, and no item in any of these sixteen narratives cleared them. The two reports share a window and a verification standard and nothing at the verdict layer, so an empty interlock is a result rather than a gap.
One narrative carries enough markers to sit at our near-ignition status: the United Kingdom media-labelling frame, which shows pronoun collectivization, a motive-to-essence recode, and guilt spreading past what camp membership alone would carry. Across all sixteen narratives we recorded pronoun collectivization ten times and the motive-to-essence recode twelve. We recorded no dehumanizing metaphor, no coined camp label, no eliminationist drift and no mirror-lock anywhere in the week. Those four are the markers that matter most, and their absence is the more useful half of this reading.
Near-ignition is a review status, not a verdict. It escalates our checking cadence. It does not make anyone on these cards an extremist, and we ask readers not to use it that way either.
Thirteen of the sixteen narratives record a mirror that answered. Read carefully, that is a finding about this instrument rather than about the discourse: the opposing camp responded in almost every case, and what our gate declines to code is the form the response took, most often merits argument, documentation or reporting rather than a counter-imputation. Two narratives found no mirror at all, and one found an opposing frame we could not establish as carried inside the window.
We publish this distribution every week whether or not it is flattering to the instrument, because a polarization monitor that codes one side more than the other needs to say so in the same place it reports its findings. The camp label is derived from each card's carrier set. It is coarse by design and the carrier-set paragraph on each card remains the authoritative account of who carried a narrative.
Ten of the sixteen come from right-coded carrier sets, and two of those are intra-camp, with the carriers framing their own side. We do not present that split as a measurement of where polarizing framing happens. It follows from our handle list, which is weighted toward right-of-centre accounts on X, and from the engagement floor that sits under every lane. Where the opposing frame existed and we could not card it, the card says so.
Every item first runs through our hate methodology's gates. Items that clear them are reported in The Weather Report and never appear here as polarization examples. Items that stay protected run through a two-prong polarization gate: the commentary's primary object must be the motives or character of the camp being framed, which may be the carrier's own, rather than the event's merits, and at least one of eight named polarizing operations must be present. Heat alone never codes, and documented, sourced motive claims never code.
Each narrative's charge priority score is CPS = (R·I·P·E·L)^(1/5): Reach, Intensity, Penetration, Elite adoption, and Lock, each anchored 1 to 5, combined by geometric mean so no single factor can dominate. Watch tiers: W1 at 4.0 and above, W2 at 3.0, W3 at 2.0, W4 below.
The ignition instrument is separate from the score and never feeds it. Seven markers, each keyed to a construct our hate methodology already defines, produce a status: cold, warming, near ignition, or ignited. Ignited means an item actually cleared the hate bar and is reported there.
The logic test states each frame's claim as a prediction-generating hypothesis and checks the predictions against what is observable, with sources. The predictions are our own operationalizations of the frame, not the speaker's stated test, and reasonable readers may formulate different checks; where a frame supports both a narrow and a strong reading, we test both and say which one a check touches. Verdicts are about a narrative's internal coherence, never about the underlying policy question, and a camp's broader concern can remain entirely legitimate while its narrative's checks come back contradicted.
Every quoted item passed a two-stage verification: a first check against its source, then an independent adversarial re-check of every quote, link and date. Items that did not meet that standard were excluded before scoring. The screening ledger for this week: 4,934 posts and 318 news items sat inside the window, 599 candidates were carried into the seven research lanes after a deterministic narrowing pass, 560 of those did not join a card, and 16 narratives were authored from the 39 items that did. Items leave for several reasons and only some of them are the gate. The one lane that broke its reasons out recorded 24 of its 111 departures as failures of the object check, with the rest carrying no codable text, no readable source, or an object the identification bar puts out of reach. Seventy-six posts were excluded before the lanes saw them because they had already cleared the hate methodology's bar and belong to that report. Clustering requires a shared canonical claim about the same trigger event on the same fault line, and a card requires either two independent carriers or a single carrier at official or major-outlet tier. Research lanes are collection beats; fault lines are the terrain the narratives land on. Both camps received the same retrieval effort in every lane, and a mirror was searched before any card recorded one as absent.
Our collection footprint covers the open web and X. Surfaces we cannot systematically see, including several large closed platforms, are underrepresented, and a narrative living mainly on those surfaces would read here as smaller than it is. Where a first-party post was not retrievable, quotes are cited to the outlet that carried them.
Penetration is scored from carrier-set breadth as a stated judgment; no within-camp sample was drawn this pass, so every penetration score leans toward a ceiling. Reach is scored on qualitative anchors, and platform-reported view counts, where shown, are floors over time rather than counts of unique readers.
The trajectory multiplier is 1.0 on every card. None of this week's narratives has an antecedent in the prior week's set that we could match, so the multiplier is a default rather than a measurement, and a flat reading here should not be read as a stable one.
The charge priority score is an operational priority score for our own review queue, not an empirical measurement of polarization. Its reach, penetration, and elite-adoption factors are related in practice, a narrative carried by elites tends to score up on all three, so nearby scores should be read as a tier, not a ranking; we publish scores to one decimal and treat smaller differences as noise. The factor anchors, the marker list and the tier cutoffs in this instrument are conventions we are still calibrating, and every one of them is recorded as tunable with a date attached, so a later change cannot quietly reshape a comparison against this week
This research is unpaid volunteer work. If you want it to continue, the fundraiser is the way to help.
Support the fundraiser