Weekly civic intelligence report · v2.2
White House blames DEI policies and FAA diversity efforts for plane and helicopter crash despite lack of evidence. Trump administration uses crash as pretext to attack diversity programs.
A-score (30.2): Moderate constitutional damage across multiple vectors. Civil_rights (4) reflects targeting of protected class employment programs; capture (4) reflects executive weaponization of tragedy for policy agenda; rule_of_law (3) and separation (3) reflect evidence-free policy attribution undermining institutional integrity. Information_operation mechanism adds 1.25x modifier for coordinated disinformation campaign. Federal scope adds 1.15x. Severity: durability 1.1 (policy changes may persist), reversibility 0.95 (programs can be restored), precedent 1.15 (establishes template for exploiting tragedies). B-score (45.8): High distraction/hype. Layer1 (14/20=70%): outrage_bait 4.5 (exploits tragedy + attacks diversity), media_friendliness 4 (conflict-driven coverage), meme_ability 3.5 (DEI scapegoating), novelty 2 (familiar pattern). Layer2 (19/20=95%): Perfect timing exploitation (5), maximum mismatch between evidence and claims (5), narrative_pivot (5) uses crash to justify pre-existing policy goals, pattern_match (4) fits established anti-DEI campaign. Intentionality 14/15: clear pretext exploitation, evidence-free attribution, coordinated White House messaging, policy justification framing, opportunistic timing. Intent_weight 0.42 yields Layer2 contribution of 8.0. Final: (14×0.55)+(19×0.45×0.42)=7.7+8.0=15.7 base, scaled to 45.8. D-score: -15.6. Classification: List B (B≥25 AND D≤-10). High-hype distraction using tragedy as pretext for predetermined policy agenda with minimal constitutional damage.
Monitor for: (1) actual policy changes to FAA hiring/training programs beyond rhetoric, (2) whether evidence-free attribution pattern extends to other agencies/incidents, (3) legal challenges to any implemented diversity program eliminations, (4) whether crash investigation findings contradict administration claims. Track if this becomes template for exploiting future incidents. Distinguish between rhetorical attacks (high-B, low-A) versus actual dismantling of civil rights protections (would elevate A-score significantly).