Coverage narrative

Coverage of Luc Van den hove

How the 10 sources on this entity in the platform's archive frame it. Tones are auto-classified by an LLM reading the title + raw-content excerpt. Critical doesn't mean wrong; favourable doesn't mean innocent. The distribution is itself the signal.

10
Sources on record
5
Classified
5
Pending
Neutral · 4 · 80.0%
Primary record · 1 · 20.0%

Representative sources by tone

Neutral 4 sources
  • Research: Luc Van den hove — Parliamentary records (no results) Search Scope Note 2026 📜 Receipt
  • Research: Luc Van den hove — Court records (no results) Search Scope Note 2026 📜 Receipt
  • Research: Luc Van den hove — Lobbying disclosures (no results) Search Scope Note 2026 📜 Receipt
  • Research: Luc Van den hove — FEC donations (no results) Search Scope Note 2026 📜 Receipt
Primary record 1 source

How tones are assigned

For each source, the title + the first ~1500 characters of raw content go to an LLM (cheap call) with a prompt asking it to pick exactly one tone from the canonical five:

  • Favourable — positive framing, advocacy, sympathetic, PR-like
  • Neutral — descriptive reporting without editorial lean
  • Critical — adversarial framing, accountability journalism, investigative
  • Mixed — substantial both-sides framing in a single piece
  • Primary record — government filing, court docket, SEC submission, raw transcript — framing doesn't apply

The classifier runs on a boot-time backfill (small batches, high-priority entities first). New ingested sources also pass through it. The model name (and run date) is stored per source — a future upgrade can re-classify with a stronger model.

A high critical % means the coverage in this archive is adversarial. It does NOT mean the subject is guilty of anything. A high favourable % means the coverage leans positive — it does NOT mean the subject is benign. The distribution shows the editorial frame; verify against the linked primary sources before citing.

Machine-readable: JSON