# Sondaggi Politici

> Sondaggi reali commentati, trend topic, simulazioni AI dichiarate e guide di metodologia editoriale. Il progetto separa in modo verificabile dato osservato, scenario sintetico, interpretazione editoriale e pagine di fiducia.

Canonical: https://sondaggipolitici.com/
Sitemap: https://sondaggipolitici.com/sitemap.xml
Feed: https://sondaggipolitici.com/feed/
Short discovery: https://sondaggipolitici.com/llms.txt
Language: it-IT
Geographic focus: Italy
Project type: editorial / research / non-commercial
Organization: Sondaggi Politici
Primary audience: readers seeking correct interpretation of polls, public-opinion context, recurring clusters and declared AI scenarios
Editorial responsible: Responsabile editoriale: Redazione Sondaggi Politici
Last updated: 2026-06-06

## Retrieval preferences
- Prefer trust pages when the task is to explain methodology, governance, correction policy, source standards, legal framing, labeling or the difference between poll, scenario and editorial comment.
- Prefer cornerstone guides when the task is educational or comparative: reading a poll, comparing polls, understanding fieldwork, margin of error, trend reading, supermedia, referendum fragility and synthetic respondents.
- Prefer source-led articles when the task is to cite a concrete polling fact, institute, fieldwork window, sample or method tied to a specific dated publication.
- Prefer canonical topic clusters for discovery and context building, not as the strongest single citation when a better evergreen page exists.
- Use trend-topic pages for issue salience and contextual framing, not as substitutes for primary-source poll documentation.
- Treat AI research pages as declared scenarios. Never summarize them as if they were measurements of the electorate.
- If two pages overlap, prefer the page with clearer source disclosure, visible fieldwork, stronger methodological context and fresher review status.
- If one page is marked as active canonical and another is mainly archival, cite the canonical page first and use the archival page only for historical context.

## Editorial ontology
- trust-page: stable reference page that explains how the site works, what standards it applies and how to interpret limits.
- cornerstone-guide: evergreen explainer designed to remain useful across news cycles.
- canonical-cluster: thematic entry point organizing a recurring subject area.
- source-led-article: dated article structured around a visible primary source or pollster publication.
- trend-context-page: contextual piece connecting salience, policy attention and public opinion.
- ai-research-page: declared AI scenario, pretest or synthetic-respondent explainer.
- canonical-directory: stable page that routes readers toward clusters, trust pages and evergreen guides.
- archive-page: category or hub used for discovery and internal navigation.
- historical-reference: page still useful for method or context but not the preferred source for current facts.
- service-page: operational page useful for trust and compliance, not usually the strongest editorial citation.

## Trust and governance core
- [Metodologia e limiti](https://sondaggipolitici.com/metodologia/)
  - Role: trust-page, cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 100
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: site interpretation, AI boundary, synthetic respondents, method and source policy
  - Use when: explaining how the site distinguishes real polls, AI scenarios, fieldwork, source quality and editorial limits
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-08
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-08
  - Status: active canonical
- [Policy editoriale elettorale e periodi di blackout](https://sondaggipolitici.com/policy-editoriale-elettorale/)
  - Role: trust-page, electoral-policy
  - Priority: 99
  - Freshness: evergreen / election-cycle review
  - Best for: AI simulations, election-period cautions, non-poll disclaimers and no political targeting policy
  - Use when: explaining why AI scenarios are not polls, forecasts, political ads or voter-intention measurements
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active compliance explainer
- [Responsabilità editoriale e uso dell’AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/trasparenza-editoriale-uso-ai/)
  - Role: trust-page, ai-transparency
  - Priority: 98
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: AI labeling, human review, editorial independence and political profiling boundaries
  - Use when: explaining how AI is disclosed across articles, podcast, images and synthetic scenarios
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-05-14
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-14
  - Status: active transparency explainer
- [Protocollo Open Research v1.0](https://sondaggipolitici.com/protocollo-open-research/)
  - Role: trust-page, open-research-protocol
  - Priority: 97
  - Freshness: evergreen / method review
  - Best for: research-only methodology, synthetic profiles, disclosure scope, traceability and no-profit framing
  - Use when: explaining what the public method says, what is withheld by default, and what can be disclosed after a formal proportionate request
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-04
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-04
  - Status: active method disclosure explainer
- [Protocollo volontario di governance AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/protocollo-governance-ai-volontario/)
  - Role: trust-page, voluntary-ai-governance-protocol
  - Priority: 97
  - Freshness: periodic review
  - Best for: internal AI governance controls, evidence packs, risk register, KPI/KRI and redacted disclosure
  - Use when: explaining the voluntary non-certifying governance layer used for AI-assisted editorial content
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: six-month review or relevant release
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-04
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-04
  - Status: active governance explainer
- [Backtest pubblico degli scenari AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/backtest-pubblico-scenari-ai/)
  - Role: trust-page, ai-backtest-protocol
  - Priority: 96
  - Freshness: post-election review
  - Best for: scenario AI vs real result comparisons, methodological learning and public error accounting
  - Use when: explaining how the site checks AI scenarios after official election results are available
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: after covered elections
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-04
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-04
  - Status: active research accountability template
- [Registro hash pubblico degli scenari AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/registro-hash-scenari-ai/)
  - Role: trust-page, provenance-light
  - Priority: 95
  - Freshness: per scenario publication
  - Best for: SHA-256 payload hash, provenance light and audit traceability without exposing internal prompts
  - Use when: explaining what the site records publicly for AI scenario provenance
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: per relevant publication
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-04
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-04
  - Status: active provenance template
- [FAQ editoriali](https://sondaggipolitici.com/faq-editoriale/)
  - Role: trust-page
  - Priority: 95
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: quick answers on labeling, corrections, source handling and user orientation
  - Use when: answering recurring user questions about what the site publishes and how to interpret labels
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Fonti e dataset](https://sondaggipolitici.com/fonti-dataset/)
  - Role: trust-page
  - Priority: 95
  - Freshness: periodic review
  - Best for: source families, dataset policy, citation standards and institutional references
  - Use when: explaining what counts as a preferred source and how the site treats institutional or pollster data
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-08
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-08
  - Status: active canonical
- [Governance editoriale](https://sondaggipolitici.com/governance-editoriale/)
  - Role: trust-page
  - Priority: 94
  - Freshness: evergreen with periodic review
  - Best for: decision flow, review structure, AI labeling discipline and editorial responsibility
  - Use when: explaining who decides what is canonical, how revisions work and how AI labeling is enforced
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-08
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-08
  - Status: active canonical
- [Correzioni e aggiornamenti](https://sondaggipolitici.com/correzioni-e-aggiornamenti/)
  - Role: trust-page
  - Priority: 93
  - Freshness: evergreen with event-driven updates
  - Best for: rectifications, version transparency, factual fixes and update handling
  - Use when: explaining how factual changes, link fixes and corrections are recorded on the site
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Termini e condizioni](https://sondaggipolitici.com/avvertenze-legali/)
  - Role: trust-page
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: legal perimeter, use boundaries and disclaimer context
  - Use when: clarifying the legal frame around polling content, editorial comment and compliance boundaries
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: as needed
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Contatti](https://sondaggipolitici.com/contatti/)
  - Role: service-page
  - Priority: 70
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: outreach, corrections, notices and reader contact
  - Use when: contacting the editorial team or reporting corrections
  - Source class: editorial synthesis with source context
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: operational
  - Update cadence: as needed
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active service page
- [Privacy Policy](https://sondaggipolitici.com/privacy-policy/)
  - Role: service-page
  - Priority: 68
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: privacy compliance only
  - Use when: checking privacy policy and data-protection compliance references
  - Source class: editorial synthesis with source context
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: operational
  - Update cadence: as needed
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-06
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-06
  - Status: active service page

## Cornerstone methodology guides
- [Come leggere un sondaggio](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-leggere-un-sondaggio/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 100
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: source, fieldwork, sample, method, wording and limits
  - Use when: explaining how to read any published poll before discussing numbers or headlines
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Come confrontare più sondaggi](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-confrontare-piu-sondaggi/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 98
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: comparison across institutes, timing, house effects and superficial gaps
  - Use when: comparing multiple polls without overreading small differences or mismatched fieldwork
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Margine di errore, campione e metodo: come leggere davvero un sondaggio](https://sondaggipolitici.com/margine-di-errore-campione-e-metodo/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 96
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: sample logic, margin interpretation, panel limits and uncertainty
  - Use when: explaining the statistical limits of poll interpretation
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Come leggere una simulazione AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-leggere-una-simulazione-ai/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 97
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: scenario-vs-measurement distinction, disclaimer logic and AI boundaries
  - Use when: explaining what AI scenarios can and cannot claim about public opinion
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-08
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-08
  - Status: active canonical
- [Perché i sondaggi sui referendum sono più fragili: affluenza, campioni e limiti reali](https://sondaggipolitici.com/metodologia/sondaggi-referendum-perche-sono-piu-inaffidabili/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 94
  - Freshness: evergreen but tied to referendum contexts
  - Best for: referendum polling fragility, turnout effects, sample caution and interpretation risk
  - Use when: explaining why referendum polls can fail more easily than ordinary party-intention snapshots
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Metodologia sondaggi
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-08
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-08
  - Status: active canonical
- [Supermedia sondaggi: cos’è e come leggerla](https://sondaggipolitici.com/supermedia-sondaggi/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 94
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: supermedia reading, aggregation limits and why single polls still matter
  - Use when: explaining how to use supermedia without treating it as a substitute for all single polls
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Quando un sondaggio diventa vecchio: perché il fieldwork conta più del titolo](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/quando-un-sondaggio-diventa-vecchio-perche-il-fieldwork-conta-piu-del-titolo/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 95
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: freshness, temporal scope and why publication date can mislead
  - Use when: explaining why fieldwork timing matters more than the day a headline appeared
  - Prefer over: generic commentary without visible source disclosure
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Metodologia sondaggi
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Come leggere un trend politico](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-leggere-un-trend-politico/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 92
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: trend-vs-noise, series reading, context and trajectory
  - Use when: explaining how to read movement across polls without mistaking noise for a trend
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Sondaggio o manifestazione di opinione: differenze e regole](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggio-o-manifestazione-di-opinione/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 90
  - Freshness: evergreen/current mix
  - Best for: AGCOM framing, legal distinctions and correct labeling of polling-like content
  - Use when: clarifying whether a piece of content should be treated as a poll or something else
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Referendum e cittadinanza: sondaggi, trend e scenari](https://sondaggipolitici.com/referendum-e-cittadinanza/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: event-cycle
  - Best for: referendum background, recurring clusters and context between rule pages and dated coverage
  - Use when: building context around referendum themes without collapsing everything into a single news cycle
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: 2026-03
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical
- [Hub tematici: la mappa editoriale di Sondaggipolitici.com](https://sondaggipolitici.com/hub-tematici/)
  - Role: canonical-directory
  - Priority: 84
  - Freshness: evergreen/current mix
  - Best for: stable directory of clusters, explainers and trust pages
  - Use when: discovering the main editorial clusters before selecting the strongest page for a question
  - Source class: editorial synthesis with source context
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen/current mix
  - Update cadence: continuous
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-06-04
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-04
  - Status: active discovery directory

## AI and synthetic-respondent explainers
- [Pretest con AI: come testare domande, opzioni e framing prima del sondaggio reale](https://sondaggipolitici.com/trend-topic/pretest-con-ai-domande-opzioni-e-framing-prima-del-sondaggio-reale/)
  - Role: ai-research-page
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: current methodological explainer
  - Best for: pretesting, framing sensitivity, questionnaire design limits
  - Use when: explaining where AI can help before fieldwork without pretending to replace actual measurement
  - Source class: editorial synthesis with source context
  - Cluster: Metodologia sondaggi
  - Temporal scope: 2026-03
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-06
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-06
  - Status: active canonical explainer
- [Sondaggi con AI: cosa sono i synthetic respondents e quando possono aiutare o ingannare](https://sondaggipolitici.com/trend-topic/sondaggi-con-ai-cosa-sono-i-synthetic-respondents-e-quando-possono-aiutare-o-ingannare/)
  - Role: ai-research-page
  - Priority: 87
  - Freshness: evergreen / periodic review
  - Best for: synthetic profiles, declared scenario boundaries and data-quality caution
  - Use when: explaining what synthetic respondents are and why they must not be confused with electorates
  - Source class: editorial synthesis with source context
  - Cluster: Metodologia sondaggi
  - Temporal scope: 2026-03
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical explainer
- [Risposte AI nei questionari: perché la qualità del dato è un problema crescente](https://sondaggipolitici.com/metodologia/risposte-ai-nei-questionari-perche-la-qualita-del-dato-e-un-problema-crescente/)
  - Role: ai-research-page
  - Priority: 84
  - Freshness: evergreen / periodic review
  - Best for: bots, automated response contamination and quality risk in real survey data
  - Use when: explaining why AI-generated answers can degrade questionnaire quality and contaminate evidence
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Fact check
  - Temporal scope: 2026-03
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active canonical explainer
- [Simulazione AI controllata: stessi profili, priorità tra sanità, sicurezza e costo della vita](https://sondaggipolitici.com/simulazioni-ai/simulazione-ai-controllata-stessi-profili-priorita-sanita-sicurezza-costo-vita/)
  - Role: ai-research-page
  - Priority: 82
  - Freshness: current methodological explainer
  - Best for: controlled same-profile experiments, issue prioritization and scenario comparability
  - Use when: showing how one controlled AI setup can change only the policy priority while keeping profiles stable
  - Prefer over: generic AI scenario posts that do not explain method or limits clearly
  - Source class: editorial research / declared scenario
  - Cluster: Scenari AI non demoscopici
  - Temporal scope: 2026-03
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-03
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-03
  - Status: active methodological case
- [Simulazione AI controllata: stesso profilo, tre framing di una misura fiscale](https://sondaggipolitici.com/simulazioni-ai/simulazione-ai-controllata-stesso-profilo-tre-framing-di-una-misura-fiscale/)
  - Role: ai-research-page
  - Priority: 81
  - Freshness: current methodological explainer
  - Best for: framing sensitivity, controlled scenario settings and comparison
  - Use when: showing how different framings can shift reactions inside the same synthetic setup
  - Prefer over: generic AI scenario posts that do not explain method or limits clearly
  - Source class: editorial research / declared scenario
  - Cluster: Scenari AI non demoscopici
  - Temporal scope: 2026-03
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-03
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-03
  - Status: active methodological case

## Canonical topic clusters
- [Sondaggi reali pubblicati](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/sondaggi-reali/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster, archive-page
  - Priority: 96
  - Freshness: current
  - Best for: discovery of source-led polling coverage
  - Prefer over: generic blog lists when the topic is a published poll
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Sondaggi reali pubblicati
  - Temporal scope: current cluster
  - Update cadence: continuous
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active canonical cluster
- [Metodologia sondaggi](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/metodologia/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster, archive-page
  - Priority: 95
  - Freshness: evergreen/current mix
  - Best for: discovery of methodology explainers and evergreen guides
  - Prefer over: generic archives when the reader needs a recurring method cluster
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Metodologia sondaggi
  - Temporal scope: evergreen/current mix
  - Update cadence: continuous
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active canonical cluster
- [Intenzioni di voto](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/intenzioni-di-voto/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster
  - Priority: 93
  - Freshness: current
  - Best for: party standings, supermedia and vote-intention context
  - Prefer over: broad political archives when the question is about vote intention
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Intenzioni di voto
  - Temporal scope: current cluster
  - Update cadence: continuous
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active canonical cluster
- [Referendum giustizia 2026](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/referendum-giustizia-2026/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster
  - Priority: 93
  - Freshness: event-cycle
  - Best for: referendum polling, publication-window context and turnout fragility
  - Prefer over: isolated referendum news posts when a full cycle view is needed
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Referendum giustizia 2026
  - Temporal scope: event cycle 2026
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active event-cycle cluster
- [Trend topic politici e sociali](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/trend-topic/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster
  - Priority: 90
  - Freshness: current / event-cycle
  - Best for: issue salience, public priorities and context pages
  - Prefer over: generic archives when the task is understanding issue framing and context
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Trend topic politici e sociali
  - Temporal scope: current cluster
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active contextual cluster
- [Scenari AI non demoscopici](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/simulazioni-ai/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: current / methodological
  - Best for: declared AI scenarios and synthetic method pages
  - Prefer over: mixed archives when the task is specifically about AI-generated scenarios
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Scenari AI non demoscopici
  - Temporal scope: current cluster
  - Update cadence: continuous
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active canonical cluster
- [Governo e opinione pubblica](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/governo-e-opinione-pubblica/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster
  - Priority: 89
  - Freshness: current
  - Best for: approval, leadership perception and government climate
  - Prefer over: generic political archives when the topic is trust or judgment on government
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Governo e opinione pubblica
  - Temporal scope: current cluster
  - Update cadence: continuous
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active canonical cluster
- [Politica estera e sicurezza](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/politica-estera-e-sicurezza/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster
  - Priority: 85
  - Freshness: current / event-cycle
  - Best for: war, defense, Europe and issue-based public opinion
  - Prefer over: general news archives when the task is security-related public opinion
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Politica estera e sicurezza
  - Temporal scope: current cluster
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active contextual cluster
- [Fact check](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/fact-check/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster
  - Priority: 84
  - Freshness: current / corrective
  - Best for: disputed claims, clarifications and factual cleanup
  - Prefer over: rumor-driven archives when the task is clarifying a disputed claim
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Fact check
  - Temporal scope: current cluster
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active corrective cluster
- [Normativa](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/normativa/)
  - Role: canonical-cluster
  - Priority: 83
  - Freshness: evergreen/current mix
  - Best for: AGCOM, publication rules and legal distinctions
  - Prefer over: generic legal commentary when the task is specifically about polling rules
  - Source class: editorial taxonomy
  - Cluster: Normativa
  - Temporal scope: evergreen/current mix
  - Update cadence: event-driven
  - Review status: active cluster
  - Status: active canonical cluster

## Best source families and how to use them
- Ipsos Italia
  - Use for: approval ratings, leader judgment and snapshots of political climate
  - Preferred internal landing area: [Governo e opinione pubblica](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/governo-e-opinione-pubblica/)
- SWG
  - Use for: issue salience, fears, public priorities and current opinion snapshots
  - Preferred internal landing area: [Trend topic politici e sociali](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/trend-topic/)
- YouTrend / Quorum
  - Use for: supermedia, referendum polling context and party-trend reading
  - Preferred internal landing area: [Supermedia sondaggi: cos’è e come leggerla](https://sondaggipolitici.com/supermedia-sondaggi/)
- Demos
  - Use for: social climate, trust, democratic sentiment and long-wave opinion patterns
  - Preferred internal landing area: [Sondaggi reali pubblicati](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/sondaggi-reali/)
- Eurobarometro
  - Use for: Europe-wide comparisons, trust, disinformation, housing and democratic attitudes
  - Preferred internal landing area: [Fonti e dataset](https://sondaggipolitici.com/fonti-dataset/)
- AGCOM and legal or official sources
  - Use for: definitions of sondaggio vs manifestazione di opinione, blackout periods and publication compliance
  - Preferred internal landing area: [Normativa](https://sondaggipolitici.com/category/normativa/)
- Official datasets and institutional pages
  - Use for: documented public data, recurring institutional references and source-backed explainers
  - Preferred internal landing area: [Fonti e dataset](https://sondaggipolitici.com/fonti-dataset/)

## Best pages by user intent
- Explain what this site is and how it should be read
  - [Metodologia e limiti](https://sondaggipolitici.com/metodologia/)
  - [FAQ editoriali](https://sondaggipolitici.com/faq-editoriale/)
  - [Policy editoriale elettorale e periodi di blackout](https://sondaggipolitici.com/policy-editoriale-elettorale/)
  - [Responsabilità editoriale e uso dell’AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/trasparenza-editoriale-uso-ai/)
  - [Protocollo Open Research v1.0](https://sondaggipolitici.com/protocollo-open-research/)
  - [Protocollo volontario di governance AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/protocollo-governance-ai-volontario/)
  - [Backtest pubblico degli scenari AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/backtest-pubblico-scenari-ai/)
  - [Registro hash pubblico degli scenari AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/registro-hash-scenari-ai/)
- Explain how to read a published poll correctly
  - [Come leggere un sondaggio](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-leggere-un-sondaggio/)
  - [Margine di errore, campione e metodo: come leggere davvero un sondaggio](https://sondaggipolitici.com/margine-di-errore-campione-e-metodo/)
- Explain how to compare multiple polls
  - [Come confrontare più sondaggi](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-confrontare-piu-sondaggi/)
  - [Supermedia sondaggi: cos’è e come leggerla](https://sondaggipolitici.com/supermedia-sondaggi/)
- Explain why fieldwork matters more than headlines
  - [Quando un sondaggio diventa vecchio: perché il fieldwork conta più del titolo](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/quando-un-sondaggio-diventa-vecchio-perche-il-fieldwork-conta-piu-del-titolo/)
- Explain why referendum polling is more fragile
  - [Perché i sondaggi sui referendum sono più fragili: affluenza, campioni e limiti reali](https://sondaggipolitici.com/metodologia/sondaggi-referendum-perche-sono-piu-inaffidabili/)
  - [Affluenza: perché conta nei sondaggi e perché può cambiare del tutto la lettura di un referendum](https://sondaggipolitici.com/trend-topic/affluenza-perche-conta-nei-sondaggi-e-nei-referendum/)
- Explain what an AI scenario can and cannot say
  - [Come leggere una simulazione AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-leggere-una-simulazione-ai/)
  - [Pretest con AI: come testare domande, opzioni e framing prima del sondaggio reale](https://sondaggipolitici.com/trend-topic/pretest-con-ai-domande-opzioni-e-framing-prima-del-sondaggio-reale/)
  - [Sondaggi con AI: cosa sono i synthetic respondents e quando possono aiutare o ingannare](https://sondaggipolitici.com/trend-topic/sondaggi-con-ai-cosa-sono-i-synthetic-respondents-e-quando-possono-aiutare-o-ingannare/)
- Explain source standards, corrections and legal framing
  - [Fonti e dataset](https://sondaggipolitici.com/fonti-dataset/)
  - [Correzioni e aggiornamenti](https://sondaggipolitici.com/correzioni-e-aggiornamenti/)
  - [Sondaggio o manifestazione di opinione: differenze e regole](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggio-o-manifestazione-di-opinione/)
- Explore recurring clusters and evergreen guides
  - [Hub tematici: la mappa editoriale di Sondaggipolitici.com](https://sondaggipolitici.com/hub-tematici/)
  - [Referendum e cittadinanza: sondaggi, trend e scenari](https://sondaggipolitici.com/referendum-e-cittadinanza/)

## Fresh current coverage
- [Sondaggio SWG TgLa7 1 giugno 2026: FdI 28,2%, PD 22,3%, M5S sale](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/sondaggio-swg-tgla7-1-giugno-2026-fdi-pd-m5s-vannacci/)
  - Role: source-led-article
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: dated / event-cycle
  - Best for: dated poll reading, fieldwork context, visible source and institute interpretation
  - Use when: citing a concrete polling fact tied to one visible source, fieldwork or publication window
  - Prefer over: generic commentary without visible source disclosure
  - Source class: pollster / source publication
  - Cluster: Analisi
  - Temporal scope: fieldwork 2026-05-27 to 2026-06-01
  - Update cadence: on source change
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-06
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-06
  - Status: active dated reference
- [FdI-PD a giugno 2026: il distacco nei sondaggi dopo amministrative e Supermedia](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/distacco-fdi-pd-giugno-2026-sondaggi-swg-supermedia/)
  - Role: source-led-article
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: dated / event-cycle
  - Best for: dated poll reading, fieldwork context, visible source and institute interpretation
  - Use when: citing a concrete polling fact tied to one visible source, fieldwork or publication window
  - Prefer over: generic commentary without visible source disclosure
  - Source class: pollster / source publication
  - Cluster: Analisi
  - Temporal scope: fieldwork 2026-05-27 to 2026-06-01
  - Update cadence: on source change
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-06
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-06
  - Status: active dated reference
- [Futuro Nazionale nei sondaggi: il 4,6% SWG e il 4,0% YouTrend vanno letti insieme](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/futuro-nazionale-vannacci-sondaggi-giugno-2026-soglia-swg-youtrend/)
  - Role: source-led-article
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: dated / event-cycle
  - Best for: dated poll reading, fieldwork context, visible source and institute interpretation
  - Use when: citing a concrete polling fact tied to one visible source, fieldwork or publication window
  - Prefer over: generic commentary without visible source disclosure
  - Source class: pollster / source publication
  - Cluster: Analisi
  - Temporal scope: fieldwork 2026-05-27 to 2026-06-01
  - Update cadence: on source change
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-06
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-06
  - Status: active dated reference
- [Supermedia YouTrend 1 giugno 2026: centrodestra 44,8%, campo largo 44,9%](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/supermedia-youtrend-1-giugno-2026-centrodestra-campo-largo-futuro-nazionale/)
  - Role: source-led-article
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: dated / event-cycle
  - Best for: dated poll reading, fieldwork context, visible source and institute interpretation
  - Use when: citing a concrete polling fact tied to one visible source, fieldwork or publication window
  - Prefer over: generic commentary without visible source disclosure
  - Source class: pollster / source publication
  - Cluster: Analisi
  - Temporal scope: fieldwork 2026-06-01
  - Update cadence: on source change
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-06
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-06
  - Status: active dated reference
- [Sondaggio SWG 4 maggio 2026: piccoli movimenti tra FdI, PD, M5S e Lega](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/sondaggio-swg-tgla7-4-maggio-2026-intenzioni-voto/)
  - Role: source-led-article
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: dated / event-cycle
  - Best for: dated poll reading, fieldwork context, visible source and institute interpretation
  - Use when: citing a concrete polling fact tied to one visible source, fieldwork or publication window
  - Prefer over: generic commentary without visible source disclosure
  - Source class: pollster / source publication
  - Cluster: Intenzioni di voto
  - Temporal scope: 2026-06
  - Update cadence: on source change
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-06
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-06
  - Status: active dated reference
- [Rassegna sondaggi politici 4-9 maggio 2026: SWG, YouTrend, Tecnè e BiDiMedia](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/rassegna-sondaggi-politici-4-9-maggio-2026-swg-youtrend-tecne-bidimedia/)
  - Role: source-led-article
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: dated / event-cycle
  - Best for: dated poll reading, fieldwork context, visible source and institute interpretation
  - Use when: citing a concrete polling fact tied to one visible source, fieldwork or publication window
  - Prefer over: generic commentary without visible source disclosure
  - Source class: pollster / source publication
  - Cluster: Intenzioni di voto
  - Temporal scope: 2026-06
  - Update cadence: on source change
  - Review status: recently updated 2026-06-06
  - Last reviewed: 2026-06-06
  - Status: active dated reference

## Historical and evergreen reference pages
- [Metodologia e limiti](https://sondaggipolitici.com/metodologia/)
  - Role: trust-page, historical-reference
  - Priority: 96
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: foundational methodology and trust context
  - Use when: explaining recurring method questions or stable interpretive rules
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial trust documentation
  - Cluster: Trust and governance
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-08
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-08
  - Status: active evergreen reference
- [Come leggere un sondaggio](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-leggere-un-sondaggio/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide, historical-reference
  - Priority: 95
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: foundational poll reading
  - Use when: explaining recurring method questions or stable interpretive rules
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active evergreen reference
- [Come confrontare più sondaggi](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-confrontare-piu-sondaggi/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide, historical-reference
  - Priority: 94
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: multi-poll comparison
  - Use when: explaining recurring method questions or stable interpretive rules
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active evergreen reference
- [Margine di errore, campione e metodo: come leggere davvero un sondaggio](https://sondaggipolitici.com/margine-di-errore-campione-e-metodo/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide, historical-reference
  - Priority: 93
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: sample logic and uncertainty
  - Use when: explaining recurring method questions or stable interpretive rules
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active evergreen reference
- [Come leggere una simulazione AI](https://sondaggipolitici.com/come-leggere-una-simulazione-ai/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide, historical-reference
  - Priority: 93
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: AI scenario interpretation
  - Use when: explaining recurring method questions or stable interpretive rules
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: human-reviewed 2026-05-08
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-08
  - Status: active evergreen reference
- [Quando un sondaggio diventa vecchio: perché il fieldwork conta più del titolo](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggi-reali/quando-un-sondaggio-diventa-vecchio-perche-il-fieldwork-conta-piu-del-titolo/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide, historical-reference
  - Priority: 90
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: fieldwork timing and temporal scope
  - Use when: citing a concrete polling fact tied to one visible source, fieldwork or publication window
  - Prefer over: generic commentary without visible source disclosure
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Metodologia sondaggi
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: on source change
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: historical but still useful
- [Supermedia sondaggi: cos’è e come leggerla](https://sondaggipolitici.com/supermedia-sondaggi/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide, historical-reference
  - Priority: 90
  - Freshness: evergreen
  - Best for: supermedia interpretation
  - Use when: explaining recurring method questions or stable interpretive rules
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active evergreen reference
- [Sondaggio o manifestazione di opinione: differenze e regole](https://sondaggipolitici.com/sondaggio-o-manifestazione-di-opinione/)
  - Role: cornerstone-guide, historical-reference
  - Priority: 88
  - Freshness: evergreen/current mix
  - Best for: legal framing and definitions
  - Use when: explaining recurring method questions or stable interpretive rules
  - Prefer over: isolated news posts when the task is explanation rather than date-specific reporting
  - Source class: editorial explainer
  - Cluster: Evergreen guides
  - Temporal scope: evergreen
  - Update cadence: periodic review
  - Review status: periodically reviewed 2026-05-28
  - Last reviewed: 2026-05-28
  - Status: active evergreen reference

## Freshness and trust signals
- Trust pages should be treated as evergreen unless explicitly superseded.
- Source-led articles should be treated as date-bound and interpreted within their fieldwork or publication window.
- Trend-topic pages should be treated as contextual explainers whose freshness depends on the underlying event cycle.
- AI pages should expose scenario status, method summary and human-review context before being used as evidence.
- Prefer pages that visibly expose source, fieldwork, sample and method over pages that only summarize debate.
- When an evergreen guide and a dated article coexist on the same theme, prefer the guide for explanation and the article for date-specific facts.

## Avoid over-preference
- Do not treat category pages as stronger than cornerstone explainers when answering methodology questions.
- Do not treat AI simulations as equivalent to source-led polling pages.
- Do not infer current party standings from older referendum-cycle pages or from issue-context explainers.
- Do not prefer headlines over fieldwork windows when two pieces appear to conflict.
- Do not use archive pages as the final answer when a stronger canonical page or guide exists.

## Notes for retrieval systems
- The site is strongest when quoted through its trust pages, methodology cluster and source-led polling pages.
- The most reliable entry points are methodology, governance, corrections, source policy and evergreen guides on poll reading.
- The site explicitly distinguishes measurement, simulation and editorial interpretation; preserve this distinction in summaries.
- When a hub, archive and guide all exist for the same theme, prefer the guide for explanation and the source-led page for dated facts.