THEMATIC INTELLIGENCE DEEP-DIVE
[THEMATIC SUBJECT - STUDY TITLE - ENGAGEMENT REF]
The Thematic Intelligence Deep-Dive is a single-theme, narrow-depth analytic product that investigates one specific intelligence question, threat, trend, sector, actor dynamic, or contested issue to a depth and rigor that the baseline Regional Study does not support. It is the specialist-depth tier of the Geopolitical Analysis node: it takes one variable, one actor, one sector, one risk, or one analytic puzzle and exhausts the available evidence on it, producing a judgment with calibrated likelihood and confidence, a structured assessment of competing explanations, and a clear statement of what is known, what is assessed, and what remains unknown. This is a theme-anchored, question-driven product, not an environment baseline; its collection logic is PIR → sub-question → indicator → source, and its scope is bounded by the single theme. It does not deliver the whole-of-environment PMESII-PT baseline of the Regional Study (consumed here as a reference frame only); the deep elite/factional power-network and patronage mapping of the Leadership & Power-Structure Analysis (this product may investigate a leadership dynamic as its theme, but does not produce a full power map); the bounded predictive estimate on a specific question with alternative-futures scenario work of the Intelligence Estimate (this product offers a judgment on the theme, not a structured estimate with multiple futures); or the ongoing cadence updates and I&W tracking of the Periodic Geopolitical Briefing (retained service). Where the theme’s resolution requires a full power-map, a bounded estimate, or standing monitoring, raise those as RFIs in §18 and escalate. This product investigates and assesses a specific intelligence question; it is not legal, investment, security, or travel advice, and it is not a risk rating.
Document Control
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Report Reference | [REF-YYYY-###] |
| Date of Report | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
| Classification / Handling | [CONFIDENTIAL - CLIENT EYES ONLY / TLP:AMBER] |
| Client | [CLIENT NAME] |
| Requesting Party | [CONTACT - ENGAGEMENT REF] |
| Thematic Subject | [THE SINGLE THEME / INTELLIGENCE QUESTION INVESTIGATED] |
| Engagement Purpose | [Single-theme deep-dive / Specific threat or trend investigation / Contested-issue resolution / Sector or actor dynamic assessment / Input to risk or estimate product] |
| Scope / Depth | [Single-theme, narrow-depth - see §2 scope] |
| Prepared By | [ANALYST NAME / ID] |
| Reviewed By | [REVIEWER NAME / ID] |
| Approving Officer | [APPROVER NAME / ID] |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Distribution | [NAMED RECIPIENTS] |
Handling & Legal Caveat
Handling: [Classification/TLP]. Disseminate only to the named authorized recipients. Reproduction or onward sharing prohibited without originator approval. Where the deep-dive names individuals (leaders, officials, private persons, subjects of investigation), it may contain personal data - store and transmit per the client data-processing agreement and applicable data-protection frameworks (GDPR, CCPA, and local equivalents).
Nature of this product (READ FIRST): This is a specialist-depth, open-source-based analytic assessment of a single intelligence theme, prepared to inform the client’s understanding, planning, and downstream decisions. It is not legal advice, investment advice, security or travel advice, a country risk rating, an insurance opinion, or a guarantee of future conditions. It is one analytic input; the client’s legal, security, financial, and in-country advisers should be relied on for operational and transactional determinations. Estimative judgments are the firm’s analytic assessments, not statements of certainty.
Analytic independence & policy neutrality (ICD 203): Assessments in this deep-dive are the firm’s independent analytic judgment, reached on the evidence and free of policy advocacy, client-preferred conclusions, or any government’s or party’s line. Reporting is distinguished from analyst judgment throughout; uncertainty drivers and change indicators are stated explicitly; alternative explanations are tested, not suppressed.
Sourcing & legality: Findings derive from open, licensed, and lawfully accessed sources - public record, official statistics, reputable media, academic and institutional reporting, commercial datasets used within licence, and (where commissioned) discreet in-country human sourcing - current as of the report date and graded (Annex A). No classified, proprietary-without-licence, or unlawfully obtained material is used; copyright and database-licence terms are respected. Where human sources are used, they are protected per the engagement’s confidentiality framework and their reliability and motivation are assessed and graded. Official statistics and state-controlled media are treated as potentially self-interested and corroborated against independent sources.
Perishability: This is a point-in-time deep-dive on a specific theme. The intelligence environment changes; the theme may evolve or be overtaken by events. Findings are time-sensitive - re-verify against current reporting before any consequential or time-critical decision, and commission a refresh or a Periodic Geopolitical Briefing for standing currency.
Reliance: Reliance is limited to the named client for the stated purpose; no third-party reliance without originator consent.
Thematic Snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Thematic Subject | [THE SINGLE THEME / INTELLIGENCE QUESTION] |
| Geographic / Domain Frame | [Country / region / sector / domain - the bounds of the theme] |
| Report Date | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
| Central Question | [The single analytic question the deep-dive answers] |
| Overall Judgment (summary) | [The bottom-line answer - one sentence] |
| Overall Analytic Confidence | [HIGH / MODERATE / LOW] |
| Principal Uncertainty | [The single most consequential gap or ambiguity] |
| Key Change Indicators | [The 1–3 observable signs that would shift the judgment] |
| Coverage Confidence | [HIGH / MODERATE / LOW - access, source diversity, currency - see §19] |
Table of Contents
- BLUF
- Executive Summary & Scope
- Key Judgments
- Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs)
- Thematic Framing & Analytic Approach
- Thematic Background & Context
- Core Investigation - Evidence & Analysis
- Sub-Question Analysis (if applicable)
- Actor & Stakeholder Analysis (Theme-Specific)
- Key Findings Register
- Red Flag / Notable Indicators (Theme-Specific)
- Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH)
- Key Assumptions Check (KAC)
- Collection Gaps & RFIs
- Assessment & Recommendations
- Annex A - Sources & Methodology
- Annex B - Appendices
(Page numbers populate on export to Word/PDF.)
1. BLUF
2–3 sentences. Lead with the answer to the central intelligence question, the overall judgment with likelihood and confidence stated separately, the most consequential evidence or gap, and the recommended posture or next step. Written so the decision-maker can act on this line alone.
[BLUF]
2. Executive Summary & Scope
Triggering requirement and engagement purpose; why this theme was investigated and for what client decision. Scope in/out stated explicitly - the single theme, the geographic/domain bounds, the report date, and what is deferred to sibling/downstream products (environment baseline → Regional Study; power-map → Leadership & Power-Structure Analysis; bounded estimate → Intelligence Estimate; standing updates → Periodic Geopolitical Briefing). Narrative synthesis of the key findings, to the ICD 203 floor - reporting separated from analytic judgment, uncertainty drivers named, alternatives acknowledged.
[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & SCOPE]
3. Key Judgments
The analytic bottom line on the theme - the answer to the central question, the principal sub-findings, and the most consequential uncertainties. Each judgment carries likelihood and analytic confidence as separate columns (never combined - ICD 203) and a change-indicator stating what would shift it. Order by decision-relevance.
| # | Key Judgment | Likelihood | Analytic Confidence | Change Indicator (what would shift it) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KJ-1 | [e.g., The [theme/trend/threat] is [characterization] and is [direction] over the [horizon]] | [ICD 203 term] | [HIGH/MOD/LOW] | [ ] |
| KJ-2 | [e.g., The principal driver of [theme] is [driver]] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| KJ-3 | [e.g., The most consequential uncertainty is [gap/ambiguity]] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| KJ-4 | [e.g., The [actor/sector] is [characterization] and its trajectory is [direction]] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
4. Priority Intelligence Requirements (PIRs)
Collection-management spine for a single-theme product: PIR → sub-question → indicator → source. State each PIR, the answer, key evidence, and analytic confidence. Each PIR maps to a sub-dimension of the theme. Summarize in the matrix.
- PIR-1 - Theme definition & scope: What is the precise nature, scale, and boundaries of the [theme]? [Answer / evidence / confidence]
- PIR-2 - Drivers & causes: What are the principal drivers, causes, or enabling conditions of the [theme]? [ ]
- PIR-3 - Actors & stakeholders: Who are the key actors, stakeholders, or beneficiaries, and what are their roles, interests, and relationships? [ ]
- PIR-4 - Trajectory & dynamics: How is the [theme] evolving, and what is its near-term trajectory? [ ]
- PIR-5 - Impact & consequences: What are the actual or potential impacts of the [theme] on [client interest / environment / sector]? [ ]
- [Add engagement-specific PIRs - e.g., a named actor dynamic, a contested narrative, a specific threat vector.]
| PIR | Sub-Dimension | Answer (summary) | Confidence | Key Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIR-1 | Definition & scope | [ ] | [H/M/L] | [ ] |
| PIR-2 | Drivers & causes | [ ] | [H/M/L] | [ ] |
| PIR-3 | Actors & stakeholders | [ ] | [H/M/L] | [ ] |
| PIR-4 | Trajectory & dynamics | [ ] | [H/M/L] | [ ] |
| PIR-5 | Impact & consequences | [ ] | [H/M/L] | [ ] |
5. Thematic Framing & Analytic Approach
State the analytic frame and its bounds before the investigation sections. Define: the single theme and why it was selected; the geographic/domain bounds and the report date; the relationship of this deep-dive to any prior baseline ( Regional Study) or to downstream products it feeds; the principal coverage constraints (access, language, data quality, contested information space); and the analytic methods applied (structured analysis, ACH, KAC, indicator analysis, network mapping, timeline analysis, etc.). One short orientation table situates the theme.
| Framing Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Thematic subject | [ ] |
| Geographic / domain bounds | [ ] |
| Relationship to Regional Study | [Consumed as reference frame / No prior baseline / Updates a finding] |
| Relationship to downstream products | [Feeds Intelligence Estimate / Feeds risk product (node) / Feeds Periodic Geopolitical Briefing] |
| Principal coverage constraints | [Access, language, official-data reliability, contested information environment] |
| Analytic methods applied | [ACH, KAC, indicator analysis, network mapping, timeline analysis, structured argumentation] |
6. Thematic Background & Context
Essential context the reader needs to understand the deep-dive: the history and evolution of the theme; its relationship to the broader operating environment (drawing on the Regional Study as reference); previous assessments or reporting on the theme; and the key events, decisions, or developments that have shaped the current state. This section establishes the baseline from which the investigation departs - it does not repeat the full environment baseline, only what is directly relevant to the theme.
[THEMATIC BACKGROUND & CONTEXT]
7. Core Investigation - Evidence & Analysis
The heart of the deep-dive: a structured, evidence-driven investigation of the theme, organized by sub-question or dimension. Each sub-section addresses one dimension of the theme (e.g., nature and scale, drivers, actors, trajectory, impact), presents the relevant evidence with Admiralty-graded sourcing, assesses what the evidence means, and states the analytic judgment with likelihood and confidence. The structure is question-driven, not source-driven; evidence is arrayed to answer the question, not catalogued. Use tables, timelines, network diagrams, and structured argumentation as appropriate. This section is the analytic engine of the product.
7.1 [Sub-Question / Dimension 1 - e.g., Nature & Scale of the Theme]
What is the precise nature, scope, and scale of the [theme]? Present the evidence - quantitative indicators, qualitative reporting, official data, expert assessment - with Admiralty grades. Assess what the evidence establishes, what it suggests, and what remains ambiguous. State the analytic judgment on this dimension with likelihood and confidence.
| Indicator / Evidence | Source | Admiralty Grade | Reading | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ ] | [ ] | [A–F/1–6] | [ ] | [H/M/L] |
Judgment on [dimension]: [Analytic bottom line on this sub-question, with likelihood and confidence stated separately.]
7.2 [Sub-Question / Dimension 2 - e.g., Drivers & Enabling Conditions]
What drives the [theme]? What are the structural and proximate causes, the enabling conditions, and the permissive factors? Distinguish necessary from sufficient causes, and structural from proximate drivers. Assess the relative weight of each driver.
| Driver | Type (Structural/Proximate) | Evidence | Weight (Dominant/Significant/Marginal) | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ ] | [Structural / Proximate] | [ ] | [Dominant / Significant / Marginal] | [H/M/L] |
Judgment on [drivers]: [Which drivers are most consequential, and the dominant uncertainty about causation.]
7.3 [Sub-Question / Dimension 3 - e.g., Actor & Stakeholder Dynamics]
Who are the key actors, stakeholders, beneficiaries, and victims of the [theme]? What are their roles, interests, capabilities, and relationships? Map the actor network at a depth sufficient to understand the theme; defer full power-mapping to the Leadership & Power-Structure Analysis.
| Actor | Role / Interest | Capability / Influence | Key Relationships | Evidence | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [H/M/L] |
Judgment on [actors]: [The actor dynamics most consequential to the theme, and where the actor picture is contested or thin.]
7.4 [Sub-Question / Dimension 4 - e.g., Trajectory & Dynamics]
How is the [theme] evolving? What is the direction, pace, and shape of change? What are the key inflection points, decision points, or trigger events on the horizon? Assess the near-term trajectory with likelihood and confidence; sketch plausible alternative paths at a light level (most-likely / most-dangerous / less-likely).
| Trajectory Path | Description | Likelihood | Analytic Confidence | Key Watch Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most likely | [ ] | [ICD 203 term] | [HIGH/MOD/LOW] | [ ] |
| Most dangerous | [ ] | [ICD 203 term] | [HIGH/MOD/LOW] | [ ] |
| Less likely / alternative | [ ] | [ICD 203 term] | [HIGH/MOD/LOW] | [ ] |
Judgment on [trajectory]: [The net near-term trajectory of the theme, the pivotal indicators, and the dominant uncertainty.]
7.5 [Sub-Question / Dimension 5 - e.g., Impact & Consequences]
What are the actual or potential impacts of the [theme] on the client’s interests, the operating environment, the sector, or the broader system? Distinguish direct from indirect effects, near-term from longer-term consequences, and intended from unintended outcomes. Assess impact severity with likelihood and confidence.
| Impact / Consequence | Affected Entity | Severity | Likelihood | Confidence | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ ] | [ ] | [Crit/High/Med/Low] | [ICD 203 term] | [H/M/L] | [ ] |
Judgment on [impacts]: [The most consequential impacts, their likelihood, and the dominant uncertainty about effects.]
8. Sub-Question Analysis (if applicable)
If the theme breaks naturally into additional sub-questions beyond the core dimensions in §7, address them here. Each sub-question follows the same evidence → assessment → judgment structure. This section is optional and used only where the theme requires it; otherwise, collapse into §7.
8.1 [Sub-Question 6]
[Evidence, assessment, and judgment with likelihood and confidence.]
8.2 [Sub-Question 7]
[Evidence, assessment, and judgment with likelihood and confidence.]
9. Actor & Stakeholder Analysis (Theme-Specific)
If the theme’s actor dynamics are sufficiently complex to warrant a dedicated section beyond §7.3, expand them here. This section provides a deeper treatment of the key actors’ motivations, capabilities, decision-making, relationships, and likely behavior with respect to the theme. It is a theme-specific actor analysis, not a full power-map (Leadership & Power-Structure Analysis).
| Actor | Motivation & Interests | Capability & Resources | Decision-Making & Constraints | Likely Behavior (re: theme) | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [H/M/L] |
Actor analysis assessment: [The net actor picture - which actors are most consequential, where behavior is predictable vs. uncertain, and what would change their trajectory.]
10. Key Findings Register
Consolidated register of the load-bearing findings across the deep-dive, each graded by evidentiary status and confidence so the reader can see what is established vs. assessed vs. contested. Materiality flags the findings that most drive the overall judgment.
| # | Finding | Status | Confidence | Materiality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [ ] | [Established / Assessed / Contested] | [H/M/L] | [ ] |
| 2 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 3 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
11. Red Flag / Notable Indicators (Theme-Specific)
Theme-specific indicators whose appearance would signal a significant development, escalation, or change in the theme’s trajectory. Each indicator is tied to the sub-dimension it bears on, a severity (how consequential if it fires), and a disposition (watch / escalate / route to a deeper product). These feed any downstream I&W program (retained service) and the Periodic Geopolitical Briefing.
| # | Indicator (observable) | Sub-Dimension (§) | Severity if Triggered | Current Status | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [ ] | [ ] | [Crit/High/Med/Low] | [Not present / Emerging / Present] | [Watch / Escalate / Route to Leadership & Power-Structure Analysis / Intelligence Estimate / Risk-product trigger] |
Severity definitions: Critical - would fundamentally change the theme or its impact (regime change, outbreak of conflict, economic implosion, regulatory overhaul). High - would materially shift the trajectory or impact and warrants immediate client notification. Medium - significant development requiring assessment update. Low - note and monitor.
12. Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH)
Apply to the central interpretative judgment of the deep-dive - typically the nature, cause, or trajectory of the theme (e.g., the theme is driven by [cause A] vs. [cause B] vs. [cause C]; or the theme is [characterization] vs. [alternative characterization]). State the competing hypotheses, array the diagnostic evidence for/against each, and identify the most consistent explanation and what evidence would overturn it. Use ACH to discipline the central judgment against confirmation bias; do not pad the apparatus where the evidence is one-sided - say so and close.
| Evidence / Indicator | H1: [Hypothesis 1] | H2: [Hypothesis 2] | H3: [Hypothesis 3] |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ ] | [C/I/N] | [C/I/N] | [C/I/N] |
(C = consistent · I = inconsistent · N = neutral.) Most consistent hypothesis: [ ] - [rationale + the diagnostic evidence that would overturn it].
13. Key Assumptions Check (KAC)
The assumptions underpinning the assessment - about data reliability, actor intent, the durability of current conditions, and the absence of exogenous shock - each with its basis, confidence, and the impact on the assessment if it proves wrong. Linchpin assumptions (those that, if wrong, collapse the judgment) are flagged.
| # | Assumption | Basis | Confidence | Impact if Wrong | Linchpin? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [e.g., Official data on the theme is directionally reliable] | [ ] | [H/M/L] | [ ] | [Y/N] |
| 2 | [e.g., The key actor’s current behavior continues through the horizon] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 3 | [e.g., No major exogenous shock intervenes] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
14. Collection Gaps & RFIs
Where coverage on the theme is thin or contested, the impact on the assessment, the collection that would close the gap, and where to escalate. Deep-dive gaps are typically access, language, contested information space, or a dimension needing a deeper product.
| Gap | Sub-Dimension (§) | Impact on Assessment | Recommended Collection | Escalation Target | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [Leadership & Power-Structure Analysis / Intelligence Estimate / In-country HUMINT / Risk-product / Periodic Geopolitical Briefing] | [H/M/L] |
15. Assessment & Recommendations
15.1 Thematic Assessment
Overall assessment of the theme - the answer to the central intelligence question, the principal findings and uncertainties, the trajectory and its implications for the client. State the overall judgment and confidence used in the BLUF and Snapshot, and the coverage/confidence caveats that bound them.
[ASSESSMENT]
15.2 Recommendations
- For decision-makers / principals: [What the theme means for the client’s stated purpose; the posture or planning assumption the deep-dive supports; the conditions under which it should be revisited.]
- For planners / operators: [Theme factors that shape operational planning - risks to monitor, actors to engage or avoid, timing windows, information operations to anticipate.]
- For analysts (next intelligence steps): [Which dimensions warrant a deeper product, which watch indicators to track, and the recommended monitoring cadence.]
- Escalations / downstream products: [Items routed to Leadership & Power-Structure Analysis, Intelligence Estimate, Periodic Geopolitical Briefing, the Geopolitical Risk Assessment node, or Strategic Forecasting & Early Warning.]
- Conditions for reliance / refresh: [The perishability window and the events/indicators that should trigger a refresh of this deep-dive before reliance on it.]
16. Annex A - Sources & Methodology
Collection methods and scope; the source register graded with the Admiralty two-axis code; the reference scales (below); statement of the likelihood-vs-confidence separation; the analytic methods applied (structured analysis, ACH, KAC, indicator analysis, network mapping, timeline analysis); coverage and currency limitations (access, language, official-data reliability, contested information environment); and the treatment of official statistics and state-controlled media as potentially self-interested and corroborated against independent sources.
Source reliability (Admiralty, A–F): A Completely reliable · B Usually reliable · C Fairly reliable · D Not usually reliable · E Unreliable · F Reliability cannot be judged.
Information credibility (Admiralty, 1–6): 1 Confirmed by other sources · 2 Probably true · 3 Possibly true · 4 Doubtful · 5 Improbable · 6 Truth cannot be judged. (Each sourced datum carries a two-character grade, e.g., B2.)
Estimative probability / likelihood (ICD 203): almost no chance / remote (01–05%) · very unlikely (05–20%) · unlikely (20–45%) · roughly even chance (45–55%) · likely (55–80%) · very likely (80–95%) · almost certain (95–99%).
Analytic confidence (evidence base - kept separate from likelihood): HIGH (multiple independent reliable sources, primary documentation, no significant contradiction) · MODERATE (some corroboration, gaps, minor unresolved inconsistency) · LOW (single/uncorroborated source, significant gaps, plausible alternatives open). Never combine a likelihood term and a confidence level in the same sentence.
Risk scoring (where the deep-dive quantifies a discrete risk): Likelihood (1–5) × Impact (1–5) = 1–25; key: 1–5 Low · 6–10 Moderate · 11–15 Elevated · 16–20 High · 21–25 Critical.
Coverage confidence (product-level): HIGH (strong access, diverse independent sources across all sub-dimensions, current data, low contested-information distortion) · MODERATE (adequate coverage with gaps in some sub-dimensions, partial access, some reliance on official/contested sources) · LOW (significant access/language barriers, thin or heavily contested sourcing, material sub-dimensions under-covered, currency degraded).
Analytic-methods note: The deep-dive applies structured analytic techniques appropriate to the theme - [ACH, KAC, indicator analysis, network mapping, timeline analysis, structured argumentation] - to discipline judgment against cognitive bias and ensure transparency of reasoning. Assessments are independent and policy-neutral per ICD 203.
Searched sources (record source type, provider/title, as-of date, coverage scope, limitations, and any self-interest/reliability caveat): [TABLE]
17. Annex B - Appendices
- Appendix A - Thematic Timeline: key events, decisions, and developments in the evolution of the theme.
- Appendix B - Actor & Stakeholder Register: principal actors with role, interest, capability, and relationships (from §7.3/§9).
- Appendix C - Indicator & Watch-Item Matrix: the §11 red-flag indicators with current status and monitoring notes.
- Appendix D - Evidence & Source Table: full evidence array by sub-dimension with Admiralty grades.
- Appendix E - Maps, Diagrams & Network Visualizations: geographic, actor-network, or process maps (pointer to separate file).
- Appendix F - Full Source Register: every source, Admiralty grade, access date, reference, and any coverage/limitation note.
- Appendix G - Glossary & Abbreviations.
- Appendix H - Revision History.
END OF REPORT.
Verification disclaimer: This thematic intelligence deep-dive is a point-in-time analytic assessment based on open, licensed, and lawfully accessed sources current as of the report date; it is not legal, investment, security, or travel advice, a country risk rating, or a guarantee of future conditions. Estimative judgments are the firm’s independent, policy-neutral analytic assessments, not statements of certainty. Intelligence environments are perishable - findings are time-sensitive and should be re-verified against current reporting before any consequential or time-critical decision. Official statistics and state-controlled sources were treated as potentially self-interested and corroborated where possible. No classified, unlawfully obtained, or out-of-licence material was used in the production of this report.
Document control footer: [REF-YYYY-### · Version · Classification/TLP · Prepared/Reviewed/Approved · Distribution].
Model wiring
Generated from cell frontmatter at publish time.