Show the issue moved — without overclaiming.
Advocacy research is judged twice: once by a board that wants proof of impact, and once by a critic who assumes the poll was written to flatter its sponsor. PolitiMind records the instrument, the admission, the computation, and the uncertainty behind every figure.
The pressure
Your strongest number is also your easiest number to dismiss
Advocacy polling carries a built-in credibility discount. The sponsor has a position, the questionnaire was written by someone who shares it, and the release rarely shows enough method for anyone to check whether the framing did the work.
Meanwhile the internal demand is the opposite: a board or funder wants evidence that a program moved opinion, on a cadence that separately commissioned polls with different instruments cannot honestly support.
What changes
An issue read that arrives with its own evidence pack
PolitiMind runs authoring, design review, verified admission, fielding, integrity review, computation, and disclosure in one system. Your team gets the frozen instrument, the recorded design review, the exclusion summary, the computation run, and the interval behind each figure — and a critic gets a page that says the same thing without going through your comms staff.
What advocacy organizations actually run on PolitiMind
Issue salience baseline
How much does the public actually care about this?
Establish where an issue sits against competing priorities before a campaign launches, so later movement is measured against a recorded starting point rather than an assumption.
How a study is authoredTracking movement over waves
Did opinion move, or did our question change?
Repeat measurement against the same verified population under a versioned method, so a trend line in a board deck is a measurement rather than a collage of separate polls.
How movement is deliveredCoalition and audience definition
Who is persuadable, and who is already with us?
Define the population you actually need to reach and see whether it is reachable at publishable precision before you commit budget to it.
How verification worksMessage and framing tests
Which framing survives contact with the public?
Test competing frames in one instrument with the design reviewed for leading construction, so the winner is not an artifact of how the question was written.
How design review worksLegislative and regulatory testimony
Will this number hold up in a hearing?
Submit a figure that arrives with its sampling frame, weighting approach, uncertainty, and known limits, so a hostile question about method has an answer on the record.
What a record provesReporting to boards and funders
How do we show this without overclaiming?
Report intervals and stated limits instead of a point estimate, and link to a published result page a skeptical funder can check without going through your staff.
See published results
From a program decision to a figure a critic can check
- 01
Start from the decision
The campaign or program decision becomes the study objective, on the record.
What you will do differently depending on the answer is recorded first, so the instrument is later reviewed against a decision rather than a wish list.
- 02Beta
Design and review
The instrument is drafted, checked for leading construction and feasibility, then frozen.
Advocacy instruments fail most often through wording that flatters the sponsor's position. Design review flags that before fielding; your team still owns the instrument.
- 03
Qualify the audience
Verified participants are matched to the population the campaign is about.
Feasibility is visible before you commit, so a district- or demographic-level claim is not promised to a board it cannot support.
- 04
Field under integrity review
Admission and integrity signals are watched while the study is open.
Advocacy topics attract coordinated participation. Duplicate and low-quality participation is excluded before the numbers reach you, and the exclusions are recorded.
- 05Beta
Repeat as a wave
Later waves reuse the frozen instrument and the recorded method version.
Comparability is a property of the record, not of a memo. Wave-over-wave reads state what changed in method, if anything.
- 06
Report with the limits attached
Intervals, weighting approach, and known limitations travel with every figure.
Boards, funders, coalition partners, and reporters all see the same disclosure your team saw.
Uncertainty first
Wave-over-wave movement, reported with its interval
Tracking reads arrive as ranges, because that is what the data supports. Consecutive waves often overlap, which means the movement between them is not established — and an honest board slide says so rather than drawing an arrow. The figures below are illustrative, not a live result.
Values in percentage points. Figures are illustrative of interval width, not published PolitiMind results.
- Wave 1 — issue is a top priority38 percentage points ± 3.5
- Wave 2 — issue is a top priority42 percentage points ± 3.5
- Wave 3 — issue is a top priority45 percentage points ± 3.5
| Reading | Estimate (percentage points) | Plausible range (percentage points) |
|---|---|---|
| Wave 1 — issue is a top priority | 38 | 34.5 – 41.5 |
| Wave 2 — issue is a top priority | 42 | 38.5 – 45.5 |
| Wave 3 — issue is a top priority | 45 | 41.5 – 48.5 |
How to read itWave 1 and Wave 2 overlap, so that step is not established; Wave 1 and Wave 3 do not, which is the movement you can defend.
What the interval does not coverThese intervals reflect sampling uncertainty only. They do not cover nonresponse bias, coverage gaps, question-wording effects, or the cause of any movement — no interval here attributes a change to a campaign.
Proof walkthrough
When the evidence behind a tracked figure is created
Step through a study the way your research committee — and then a hostile critic — would. Each phase names what evidence comes into existence, who outside your organization can check it, and what that check does not settle. Where transparency is still a commitment rather than a capability, it says so.
An advocacy tracking study, phase by phase
Before fielding
When the program decision becomes a study, before any participant sees it.
- Evidence created
- The objective, questionnaire, audience definition, and analysis intent are recorded and frozen as a specification.
- Who can check it
- Your board or research committee, and any reader comparing the published instrument to the one that was frozen.
- What it does not settle
- A frozen instrument does not establish that the question was fair to the opposing position, or that the issue matters.
Phase 1 of 8: Before fielding
Live evidence versus planned transparencyFrozen instruments, verified admission, integrity exclusion, recorded computation, and methodology published with each figure are live today. AI-assisted design review and longitudinal wave comparison are beta, with short published wave history. Tamper-evident anchoring is beta on Base Sepolia and not available on mainnet. Independent review is planned and does not exist yet — never describe PolitiMind as audited or certified in grant reporting or testimony.
Model comparison
Where this differs from commissioned advocacy research
This compares approaches, not vendors. No research organization is named or characterised, and rows that depend on how a specific provider works carry that caveat. If a row matters to your board, ask your current research partner the same question — that is a better test than anything on this page.
Advocacy research, model by model
| Dimension | Commissioned advocacy research | PolitiMind |
|---|---|---|
| Proving movement to a board | Trend lines are assembled across separately commissioned polls with different instruments and vendors.Practice varies: Published wave history is short, and some local cuts are not yet feasible at publishable precision. | Repeat waves reuse a frozen instrument under a recorded method version, so comparability is a property of the record. Beta How movement is delivered |
| Who answered | Panel eligibility is largely self-declared; open advocacy web forms are not sampled at all. | Identity verification happens before a person can answer, so eligibility is established at admission.How verification works |
| Coordinated participation on a hot issue | Brigading is addressed after the fact through data cleaning, described in a summary. | Integrity signals are reviewed during field and exclusions are recorded with the result.The integrity model |
| Defending a figure in a hearing | Reconstructing a specific figure means trusting the vendor's account of their own process. | Specification, method version, and computation run are recorded, so the figure is traced rather than vouched for.The audit timeline |
| Sponsor influence on the instrument | The sponsor's preferred framing often reaches the questionnaire, and the review that caught it is not published. | Design review for leading construction is recorded with the specification, and framing is not for sale. Beta The assurance model |
| Participant privacy | Recontact and respondent detail depend on the vendor's contract and consent language. | Identity and response data are held separately; you receive population-level results, never participant identities or contact details.Verification without surveillance |
Symmetry, on the record
The same standards for every organization and every position
Verification, design review, integrity review, weighting, and disclosure are identical for every organization on the platform, on every side of every issue. We do not sell exclusivity, we do not tune a method toward a sponsor's preferred framing, and participants are rewarded for verified participation, never for the substance of their opinions.
What you can claim
- Every participant behind the study passed identity verification before answering.
- The instrument your team approved is the instrument that fielded.
- Duplicate and coordinated participation was excluded, and the exclusions are recorded.
- Each figure traces to a recorded computation run and a stated method version.
- Margin of error, weighting approach, and known limits travel with every number.
- Between waves, the measured share changed by a stated amount, with its interval.
What you must not claim
- That your campaign caused the movement between waves.
- That PolitiMind is independently audited or certified — no such review exists yet.
- That verification removes sampling error, nonresponse bias, or wording effects.
- That a favourable framing, weighting, or headline number can be commissioned.
- That participants were rewarded for holding or expressing your position.
- That your organization can obtain participant identities for organizing or recontact.
If a funder or a hearing requires cleared language, ask us for the methodology statement for that specific study rather than reusing copy from an earlier wave.
Known limits
What this page does not promise
PolitiMind measures opinion; it does not attribute movement to your campaign, and it does not forecast elections or ballot outcomes. Longitudinal tracking is beta: the published wave history is short, and some local and demographic cuts are not yet feasible at publishable precision. Verified admission and recorded computation remove whole classes of integrity failure and leave sampling error, coverage gaps, nonresponse bias, and question-wording effects exactly where they were. Participant identities are never available to your organization, including for organizing or recontact.
What this page claims
- BetaBecause the same verified population can be measured repeatedly, movement over time is comparable rather than reconstructed from unrelated samples.
- Methodology is stated in plain language — sampling frame, weighting approach, margin of error, and known limitations travel with every result.
- Published results carry provenance: the specification, method version, and computation run behind a number are recorded and inspectable.
- Participation requires identity verification, so responses come from confirmed real people rather than anonymous traffic.
- Every study runs behind integrity controls that detect duplicate, coordinated, and low-quality participation before results are published.
- Participant identity and response data are held separately, so buyers receive population-level intelligence and never participant identities.
PolitiMind claims verified admission, recorded computation, integrity controls, and methodology published with each figure. It does not claim causal attribution for opinion movement, electoral forecasting, feasibility for every local cut today, or independent certification. Longitudinal tracking and tamper-evident anchoring are beta; independent review is planned.
Check it before you cite it
Because the same verified population can be measured repeatedly, movement over time is comparable rather than reconstructed from unrelated samples.
How tracking works todayMethodology is stated in plain language — sampling frame, weighting approach, margin of error, and known limitations travel with every result.
Read the assurance modelPublished results carry provenance: the specification, method version, and computation run behind a number are recorded and inspectable.
Trace a published figureParticipation requires identity verification, so responses come from confirmed real people rather than anonymous traffic.
How admission is establishedNext step
Baseline one issue you are already campaigning on
The useful test is not a capability deck. Take an issue you will still be working in six months, baseline it here, and judge the result on two things: could your board accept the movement as reported with its interval, and could a critic check the number without calling you.
Continue the argument
Intelligence & Analytics
See what the deliverable looks like and how it supports a decision
Read itMethodology
Confirm PolitiMind understands sampling, weighting, and uncertainty
Read itProof of Integrity
Inspect how a published number can be checked
Read itPublic Results
Inspect a real published result and its methodology
Read it