Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

11
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
74% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
CobbleStone® Expands Agentic VISDOM® AI Features Into Its Native Online Document Editor, Delivering Fully Integrated Contract Intelligence
Cision PR Newswire

CobbleStone® Expands Agentic VISDOM® AI Features Into Its Native Online Document Editor, Delivering Fully Integrated Contract Intelligence

/PRNewswire/ -- CobbleStone Software, a recognized leader in contract lifecycle management (CLM) and contract artificial intelligence, has announced the launch...

By CobbleStone Software
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives agree the document follows a standard corporate press‑release format, but they differ on the degree of persuasive framing. The critical view highlights subtle authority appeals and omission of risk information, while the supportive view emphasizes the lack of overt emotional or urgent language. Weighing the evidence, the content shows modest promotional bias without clear manipulative tactics, suggesting a low‑to‑moderate manipulation score.

Key Points

  • The press release uses conventional PR structure and verifiable details (dateline, CEO quote, contact info).
  • The critical perspective identifies subtle authority framing and omission of performance, cost, and privacy data.
  • The supportive perspective notes the absence of urgency, fear‑based language, or calls to immediate action.
  • Both sides agree there is no overt deceptive or emotional manipulation, indicating overall low manipulation risk.
  • Given the modest promotional tone, a low‑to‑moderate score is appropriate.

Further Investigation

  • Obtain independent performance benchmarks or error‑rate statistics for VISDOM AI.
  • Review CobbleStone’s data‑privacy policy and any disclosed compliance certifications.
  • Seek third‑party evaluations or customer testimonials that address limitations or costs.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
Minimal indicators of false dilemmas. (only two extreme options presented) no alternatives presented
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
Minimal indicators of tribal division. (us vs. them dynamics) Pronouns: "us" words: 1, "them" words: 0
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
Minimal indicators of simplistic narratives. (good vs. evil framing) Moral absolutism words: 0, nuance words: 1
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Minimal indicators of timing coincidence. (strategic timing around events) Best-effort timing analysis (no external context):; 2 urgency words
Historical Parallels 1/5
Minimal indicators of historical parallels. (similarity to known propaganda) Best-effort historical analysis (no PSYOP database):; 1 historical references; 1 event indicators
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
Minimal indicators of financial/political gain. (who benefits from this narrative) Best-effort beneficiary analysis (no external context):; 1 beneficiary mentions; 22 financial terms
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
Minimal indicators of bandwagon effect. (everyone agrees claims)
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
Minimal indicators of rapid behavior shifts. (pressure for immediate opinion change) Best-effort behavior shift analysis (no adoption data):; 1 symbol/hashtag references
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Minimal indicators of uniform messaging. (coordinated identical messaging) Best-effort messaging analysis (no cross-source data):; no uniform messaging detected
Logical Fallacies 1/5
Minimal indicators of logical fallacies. (flawed reasoning) No logical fallacies detected
Authority Overload 1/5
Minimal indicators of authority overload. (questionable experts cited) No expert appeals found
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Moderate presence of cherry-picked data detected. (selectively presented data) 2 data points; no methodology explained; 1 context indicators; data selectivity: 0.50, context omission: 0.50
Framing Techniques 3/5
Moderate presence of framing techniques detected. (biased language choices) single perspective, no alternatives; 1 selective emphasis markers; 1 euphemistic/sanitizing terms (euphemisms: 1, sanitizing phrases: 0)
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
Minimal indicators of suppression of dissent. (critics labeled negatively) No suppression or dismissive language found
Context Omission 3/5
Moderate presence of missing information detected. (crucial facts omitted) Claims detected: 3; sentiment: 0.99 (one-sided); no qualifiers found; no alternative perspectives; 2 factual indicators; attributions: credible=2, discrediting=0; context completeness: 7%
Novelty Overuse 2/5
Low presence of novelty overuse patterns. (unprecedented/shocking claims) Novelty words: 0, superlatives: 0; no historical context provided
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Minimal indicators of emotional repetition. (repeated emotional triggers) Emotional words: 4 (1 unique); repeated: risk(4)
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
Minimal indicators of manufactured outrage. (outrage disconnected from facts) Outrage words: 0, factual indicators: 2; emotion-to-fact ratio: 0.00; 14 ALL CAPS words
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
Minimal indicators of urgent action demands. (demands for immediate action) Urgency language: 5 words (1.02%), 0 deadline phrases
Emotional Triggers 3/5
Moderate presence of emotional triggers detected. (fear, outrage, or guilt language) Emotional words: 4 (0.81% density). Fear: 4, Anger: 0, Guilt: 0. Manipulation score: 0.622
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else