Methodology

CulturalBI analyzes cultural infrastructure — measurable institutional mechanisms: funding flows, distribution metrics, public opinion dynamics, talent development systems, patterns of institutional recognition.

If a phenomenon leaves no trace in public data — it lies outside our method.

A state without history is not analysis. Every report is built on a time series: the horizon is determined by the subject of analysis. A shift is only visible against the background of a prior position.

A single example is not a structural conclusion. An observation is accepted as a pattern when it reproduces across three or more independent contexts: different countries, different eras, different institutional environments. One case is an anomaly. Three is a pattern.

Independence of contexts means: different funding sources, different management chains, different historical periods. Three countries of the same geopolitical bloc in the same decade may constitute one context, not three.

Primary: polling data (Gallup, Pew, Eurobarometer, national sociological services), official statistics, institutional reporting from government bodies.

Secondary: industry reports, association data, media economics research. Used as a supplement to primary sources — not as an independent basis.

OSINT reports based on public data are accepted as an independent source type provided the methodology is verifiable.

A claim is accepted when confirmed by a minimum of two independent sources.

Expert assessments without data. Anonymous sources. Classified materials and data requiring special access. Single cases without a pattern. Sources with unverifiable methodology.

Public leaks are accepted when three conditions are met: authenticity is not disputed, content is verifiable through independent sources, and the material's status is explicitly described in the report text.

The method works with what has left a trace in public data. Structures that deliberately avoid documentation remain outside its scope — not because they don't exist, but because our instrument cannot see them.

Survivorship bias: we analyze what survived and was documented. Failed institutions, closed projects, unreleased films — are underrepresented in sources, and therefore in our reports as well. This is a known distortion that cannot be eliminated, but must be accounted for in interpretation.

CulturalBI publishes two formats. An analytical brief captures structure and formulates a structural conclusion from data. An essay offers authored analysis with an explicit position: data serves as the foundation, but the author may go beyond the structural conclusion.

Both formats answer the question of what is happening and why. What to do about it in a specific context is the subject of research collaboration.

Every report undergoes four checks — in order of priority.

1. Unit of analysis: stated at the beginning of the report, not substituted in the body. If the object of analysis shifts mid-course, the report is split.

2. Source attribution: every figure is cited at the point of use, not only in the source list at the end. A claim supported by a single source is a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

3. Baseline for statistical claims: a claim of disproportionality requires an explicitly stated basis of comparison. "X produces 12% of output with 1% of incoming flow" is a complete statement. "X is disproportionately represented" without a baseline is not.

4. Genre boundary: an analytical brief contains no normative language ("must," "should," "obviously") without a supporting figure. If the author goes beyond the structural conclusion, the paragraph is marked as "author's interpretation," or the piece is reclassified as an essay.