Publication entry points¶
What shapes a research design is not the topic or the format — it is where the publication enters the policy cycle. The entry point fixes the question you ask, the sources that lead, and the reader you are trying to move. EMPN papers fall into six entry points, split by one thing: whether there is a live EU legislative file to attach to.
The plugin encodes this. scope-research and scope-question fix the entry point before decomposing the question; draft-brief confirms it alongside audience and decision. The full doctrine lives in shared/publication-entry-points.md.
Blue = anchored to a live EU file. Orange = off the clock, no file. The file-anchored three cover roughly half of think-tank output; the three off-clock entry points account for the rest.
Anchored to a live EU file¶
The paper attaches to a named file on the legislative clock. Which stage the file has reached decides the question.
1 · Agenda-setting¶
A file is expected but not yet drafted. You frame the problem before the Commission owns the framing.
Research question — What must the coming file solve, and why now? The load-bearing move is the counterfactual of inaction and the option space, not a critique.
2 · Reaction¶
A proposal, Council general approach, or trilogue outcome has just landed, and the clock is running toward the next stage.
Research question — Does the proposal work, and how will member states take it? This is the classic define the proposal → limits → adoptability across member states structure, mapping the co-legislators before proposing fixes.
3 · Ex-post¶
The file is adopted, in transposition, or up for review. The question is what survived and what it means in practice.
Research question — What was lost in trilogue, and does it still solve the problem?
Off the clock¶
No live file to react to. The paper stands on its own trigger, and the political map — when there is one — is anticipated or speculative, not a live count of co-legislators.
4 · New instrument¶
No external trigger. You have found a problem no live file addresses and want to put a concrete mechanism on the agenda.
Research question — Why do existing tools fail, and what new mechanism would work — is it feasible under the Treaties and the budget?
5 · Reactive-event¶
A shock, court ruling, election result, or a peer institution's report — not a legislative act. This is the largest off-clock category.
Research question — Do existing instruments hold, or is a response now needed? The stakeholder logic differs from a legislative reaction: map the responders and the framework already in force, not a trilogue.
6 · Diagnostic¶
No external trigger. You publish to change the priors the debate runs on — "the state of X", or a single finding that contradicts a common assumption.
Research question — What is actually true, and which widely-held assumption does the evidence overturn? There is no policy ask; the deliverable is a corrected picture.
Quick reference¶
| # | Entry point | Trigger | Core question | Political map |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Agenda-setting | File expected, not drafted | What must it solve, why now | Anticipated |
| 2 | Reaction | Proposal / general approach / trilogue live | Does it work; MS adoptability | Live, named |
| 3 | Ex-post | Adopted / in implementation | What was lost; does it still solve it | Retrospective |
| 4 | New instrument | None — self-initiated | Why existing tools fail; new mechanism | Feasibility |
| 5 | Reactive-event | Shock / ruling / election / peer report | Do existing instruments hold | Responders, not co-legislators |
| 6 | Diagnostic | None — self-initiated | What's true; which prior breaks | Usually none |
On the method
The six entry points were validated against the EMPN and Bruegel publication records (July 2026): the six cover roughly 85–90% of argumentative output, while the file-anchored three alone cover only 40–50% — most think-tank writing is not tied to a live file. Trackers, datasets, and recurring monitors are a matter of format, not entry point, and sit outside this map.