The method focuses on clear provenance, simple scoring, and visible uncertainty. By following the steps here you can collect primary texts, code claims consistently, and publish a policy priority matrix that shows both the evidence and the limits of what is known.
How to use the Michael Carbonara platform comparison guide
This short guide shows a reproducible, source based method to compare the Michael Carbonara platform against neutral records and filings. According to the campaign site, the campaign lists entrepreneurship, family, resilience, faith, service, accountability, and economic opportunity as recurring platform themes, so the campaign website is the primary record for stated priorities Michael Carbonara campaign site.
Resources to reproduce the comparison and export raw sources
This article includes a resources box with a codebook template, an export-ready source list, and sample spreadsheets for voters and local reporters to download and adapt.
To corroborate candidacy status and neutral candidate information, check Ballotpedia for a candidate profile and basic timeline details Ballotpedia candidate profile and the district election page Florida’s 25th election page.
For verification of committee registration and campaign finance items, consult the Federal Election Commission candidate and committee data; these filings are the authoritative public records for a 2026 House campaign FEC candidate data and see the FEC candidate overview CARBONARA, MICHAEL – Candidate overview.
Who this is for
This method is written for voters in Florida’s 25th District, local residents comparing candidate claims, and journalists or students who need a reproducible approach to compare candidate priorities. Use it when you want to compare platform themes across campaign posts, neutral profiles, and official filings without adding interpretation.
What you will produce
At the end you will have a documented comparison matrix that lists claims, provenance, scores, and flags for missing evidence. That matrix is designed to support a clear candidate comparison method and to let readers see the source behind each score.
Definition and context: campaign statements, public records, and provenance
Define a campaign statement as any direct text published by the campaign that expresses a priority or theme. According to the campaign site, entrepreneurship, family, resilience, faith, service, accountability, and economic opportunity appear repeatedly as campaign statements, and those items should be captured as primary statements when coding Michael Carbonara campaign site.
Primary versus secondary sources matter because they affect how much weight a claim should receive. Ballotpedia provides a neutral candidate profile and is a useful secondary source for candidacy status and background information Ballotpedia candidate profile.
FEC filings are the authoritative public records to verify committee registrations and campaign finance numbers, so treat them as primary legal documents for finance and timing claims FEC candidate data.
Collecting sources: campaign site posts, FEC filings, and Ballotpedia entries
Start by saving complete copies of campaign statements from the campaign website or the news archive news archive. Capture the date, URL, and full text for each page or post, and label each item with a provenance tag such as campaign statement, press release, or issue page so you can later filter by source type Michael Carbonara campaign site.
Export and archive campaign pages and FEC candidate records for analysis
Use consistent filenames and a central folder for raw sources
Next, export candidate and committee data from the FEC site. The FEC search allows CSV export of candidate filings and committee entries; save the export with the date you retrieved it and note the query used so you can reproduce the search later FEC candidate data.
Finally, save a neutral candidate profile such as the Ballotpedia page as a corroborating reference for candidacy status and timeline notes. Ballotpedia is useful as a stable secondary summary that you can cite when you need a neutral description of candidate status Ballotpedia candidate profile.
Building a codebook and provenance tiers for platform claims
Create a written codebook that lists the policy categories you will use, clear label definitions, and examples. Methodological work in content analysis emphasizes that a written codebook with definitions, examples, and decision rules is essential to reproduce results and to train coders consistently Content Analysis methodology.
Define provenance tiers such as campaign statement, official filing, third party profile, and media report. Comparative coding projects show how standardized policy categories and provenance tiers make it possible to build comparable matrices across actors and parties, which helps when you want a neutral policy priority matrix Methods from the Manifesto Project.
Keep the codebook short and practical. Include a sample entry for each category, a list of allowed source types, and a section on how to document missing evidence so every coded claim can be traced back to a provenance tag.
Coding claims, inter-coder reliability, and quality checks
Run a pilot coding round with a small set of claims and use that pilot to refine your codebook. Training coders on examples and edge cases helps reduce ambiguity and makes later reliability checks meaningful Content Analysis methodology.
Measure inter-coder reliability using a standard statistic such as Cohen’s kappa and record the score for each coding wave. That score provides a defensible measure of agreement and should be published alongside the results to show quality checks.
Collect campaign statements, export FEC filings, save neutral profiles, build a written codebook, run pilot coding with inter-coder reliability checks, apply transparent weights, and publish the matrix with missing evidence flags so others can verify the results.
When discrepancies arise, use a simple adjudication workflow: the two coders document their rationale, a third coder reviews the notes, and the team records the final decision in a log. Keep dates and rationale for all adjudications to preserve provenance and transparency.
Weighting, scoring, and building a voter-friendly matrix
Recommend weighting claims by source type, date, and direct attribution. Weight recent, directly attributed campaign statements and official filings more heavily than undated slogans or uncorroborated third party summaries, and publish the chosen weights so readers can see how scores were derived Guidance for evaluating news and claims.
Use a simple scoring rubric that assigns points by provenance tier and by whether the claim is directly attributed and dated. For example, give higher base points to official filings and campaign statements with clear dates and a lower base to third party profiles, then add or subtract points for specificity and corroboration.
Document every weighting decision in a short methods note appended to the matrix. Transparently flag contradictory or missing evidence instead of hiding it so readers can see where uncertainty affects ranked priorities.
Constructing the comparison matrix and producing ranked priorities
Lay out the matrix with these columns: claim, source, date, provenance tier, score, notes, and missing evidence flags. That layout makes it straightforward to display the provenance behind each entry and to filter the matrix for different audiences such as voters, reporters, or researchers Michael Carbonara campaign site.
Aggregate scores by policy category to produce a ranked list of priorities. When aggregating, preserve the underlying claims so users can expand a ranked item and see the original texts, dates, and source notes that produced the score.
When presenting the results for voters, include short explanatory captions and a legend that defines provenance tiers and score ranges so a nontechnical reader can interpret the policy priority matrix easily.
Decision criteria for voters: how to interpret scores and signals
Advise voters to prioritize directly attributed, recently dated statements and documented filings when interpreting scores. A reliable signal is a clearly dated campaign statement or a matching FEC filing that documents committee activity or fundraising timing FEC candidate data.
Watch for red flags such as undated claims, repeated slogans with no policy detail, or third party summaries that cannot be traced to a primary text. When you see those patterns, flag the item and note the missing evidence so readers know why the score is lower Guidance for evaluating news and claims.
Common pitfalls and mistakes to avoid when comparing platforms
Do not treat campaign rhetoric as a policy commitment without direct attribution and specifics. Campaign statements can be persuasive by design, so record whether a claim is a slogan or a detailed policy statement and code accordingly Michael Carbonara campaign site.
Avoid ignoring dates and provenance because that can produce misleading comparisons. Record capture dates consistently and use the date of the original statement when possible so your timeline of claims is accurate.
Practical scenarios: applying the method to two sample claims
Example 1: economic opportunity from the campaign site. Collect the campaign post, record the date, and code it under the economic opportunity category. According to the campaign site, economic opportunity is one of the recurring themes, so mark the provenance as campaign statement and score it based on specificity and date Michael Carbonara campaign site.
Step 1, capture the full text and URL. Step 2, apply the codebook label economic opportunity. Step 3, assign base points for provenance and add points for direct attribution or detailed policy elements. Finally, note any missing corroboration or related filings.
Example 2: a finance or committee entry from the FEC. Retrieve the FEC export row that lists committee registration or a fundraising entry, save the filing PDF when available, and code the claim under finance or committee activity. Use the FEC data row and filing date to verify the timing and record the provenance as an official filing FEC candidate data.
In both examples, show the original text or filing as a linked source in the matrix and add a missing evidence flag if any detail is ambiguous or undated.
Transparency, uncertainties, and documenting gaps
Include a visible missing evidence flag and a short explanation for each flagged item. Research guidance recommends documenting missing or contradictory evidence so users understand where confidence is lower and why a priority was scored down Guidance for evaluating news and claims.
Publish the codebook, scoring rules, and inter-coder reliability scores alongside the matrix. Making those materials public lets other reporters or civic projects reuse the candidate comparison method and check your work Content Analysis methodology.
Updating the comparison during the campaign cycle
Plan update triggers such as new campaign statements, debate appearances, or FEC filing updates. When a new campaign post appears, capture it and run it through the codebook so the matrix reflects the most recent platform statements Michael Carbonara campaign site. See the broader 2026 House elections in Florida for context 2026 House elections in Florida.
Re-export FEC candidate and committee data after each filing window or after major finance events. Note the date of the last update prominently on any published matrix so readers know how current the comparison is FEC candidate data.
How journalists and civic readers can reuse and cite this method
When adapting this approach, link to the primary source for each claim (for example, the about page) and to the FEC record when citing finance items. Use clear attribution language such as according to the campaign site and public FEC records show so readers can trace each claim to its origin Content Analysis methodology.
Publish your codebook and any scoring scripts or templates with the matrix so others can verify the results. That reuse supports reproducible civic reporting and helps maintain a transparent candidate comparison method Guidance for evaluating news and claims.
Conclusion: next steps for voters in Florida’s 25th District
Recap the main steps: collect primary texts and filings, create a written codebook, run pilot coding rounds with inter-coder reliability checks, apply transparent weights, build the matrix, and document uncertainties. This process helps voters compare priorities with a focus on provenance and dates.
For next actions, review the campaign site issues page for platform statements, check Ballotpedia for a neutral profile, and verify finance and committee details via FEC filings. Use the published codebook and missing evidence flags to interpret ranked priorities responsibly Ballotpedia candidate profile.
The campaign website is the primary source for Michael Carbonara's stated priorities; it lists recurring themes that should be captured as campaign statements.
Use the Federal Election Commission candidate and committee data to verify committee registration and finance filings, and save the FEC export rows you rely on.
Publishing the codebook, scoring rules, and reliability scores allows others to reproduce and verify the comparison, and it makes uncertainty visible to readers.
For civic projects, treat this method as a template and adapt weighting rules to local needs, but keep transparency and provenance central to any published comparison.
