What does AI tell voters about you, and who is shaping that answer?
Campaigns are argued in places your analytics never sees: AI assistants summarising your record, public Telegram channels framing the debate, communities deciding what your name means. Eidoscore watches those places, reads them for meaning, and gives your team a reviewed brief it can act on.
Why this lands differently here.
A campaign is a deadline. Perception hardens in the final weeks, and by the time a framing reaches your press monitoring it has usually been circulating in public channels for days. The gap between when a claim starts moving and when your team hears about it is the whole problem.
Voters increasingly ask an assistant before they ask a canvasser. That answer is assembled from a narrow set of sources: news archives, encyclopaedia entries, whatever ranks. If your record is summarised from three-year-old coverage, that is the version being read at the doorstep.
Opposition framing compounds. A phrase that appears in a few community threads in week one becomes the assumed description by week four, and by then correcting it costs far more than catching it would have.
A single claim, unanswered for ten days, becomes the sentence an assistant uses to describe your candidate — and the one voters repeat back to your canvassers in the final week.
What teams use it for.
Concrete work, not a dashboard tour. Each job produces something a person can review, decide on and send.
Track how assistants describe your positions and your opponents, with ranges and evidence
Early warning when a hostile framing or false claim starts moving in public channels
Citation gaps: which sources AI relies on about your topics, and which are missing or outdated
What we monitor for you.
The same engine, pointed at the signals that matter in your work rather than a generic mention feed.
Position representation
How each major assistant summarises your policy positions and your record, tracked over repeated runs so you see drift rather than a single snapshot.
Hostile framing
Phrases and claims about your candidate or party gaining traction in public channels, clustered into narratives and scored for spread.
Comparative visibility
How you appear relative to a defined set of opposing actors on the same questions, with the evidence behind each answer.
Source strength
Which sources assistants rely on when asked about you, which are outdated, and which gaps are worth closing before they matter.
A concrete example.
Three weeks before a vote, a claim about your record starts moving through public Telegram channels. Eidoscore flags the narrative early, shows every source message as evidence, and tracks whether the same framing starts appearing in AI answers about you. Your team decides the response; nothing is published without approval.
Questions we hear from political organisations.
Can we track opponents?
You can track how assistants describe opposing campaigns and how their narratives develop in public channels. We monitor topics and narratives, not private individuals.
Does this work during a campaign period?
Yes. The campaign war room adds daily alerts and response drafts for a defined period, with a direct channel to your analyst.
Is political data handled lawfully?
Public sources only, EU hosting, and a Data Protection Impact Assessment before any scaled monitoring of political content.
What the weekly brief contains.
One reviewed document a week. Ten minutes to read, every claim linked back to its source.
EU-hosted. Public sources only. Topics and narratives, not individuals. Every action human-reviewed.