SEO / Portfolio / Public Site

2IA Public Information Architecture and Navigation Review

Report summary

Status: Research archive item
Category: SEO / Portfolio / Public Site
Length: 4,847 words
Reading time: 23 minutes
Report type: evaluation

Key topics

SEO / Portfolio / Public Site
SEO
Portfolio
Public Site
AI
Privacy
Research Archive
Audit
Architecture

Research provenance

Archive status: Research archive item
Canonical report: https://mikekappel.com/reports/seo-portfolio-public-site/2ia-public-information-architecture-and-navigation-review/
Content identity: sha256:1bf9ce7a4c4653663680b809a1245bdfe207c76961a2b773b03e660d330c8285

For citation, use the report title and canonical URL. Archival presence does not establish authorship or promote report statements into portfolio evidence.

Source availability: 93 citation markers in the source export have no recoverable source links. Those markers are omitted from this reader; any supplied bibliography and ordinary links remain. Check the original sources before relying on the cited claims.

This page renders the archived Markdown as safe, formatted HTML. It is background research and does not become a portfolio claim without evidence review.

Full report

On this page

Scope and overall findings

This review was conducted as an ordinary public reader using only the public website and publicly reachable linked pages. I examined the home page, major collection pages, trust-and-standards pages, current/developments pages, directory pages, several representative research guides and briefs, issue/topic pages, and the publicly linked sister publication. Across the pages I opened, the site exposes a consistent public chrome: a utility strip with a developments link and sister-publication link, a repeated primary menu, a repeated “Search 2IA research” control, breadcrumbs on many pages, and a four-part footer grouped as Explore, Trust and standards, Participate, and Contact.

At a high level, 2IA is strong on editorial boundary-setting and reader caution. “Start Here,” “About,” “Methodology,” the Anonymous guides/briefs, the oversight brief, and the information-operations brief all do substantial work to separate evidence from allegation, current facts from preserved sources, and analysis from operational instruction. Those routes are unusually explicit about uncertainty, corrections, and lawful use.

The weakest part of the public architecture is not lack of content; it is naming and layering. A first-time reader meets overlapping labels such as Archive, Intelligence Library, Research Guides, Research Briefs, Topic Hubs, Issues, dossiers, research files, and developments. Several of these are meaningful only after reading explanations. Some pages duplicate or overlap each other, such as Issues versus Topic Hubs, and Metadata and Identity versus Metadata Is Identity. The site also shows a live-brand identity of “International Intelligence Archive,” while search snippets and some discoverable legacy pages still surface “Two Identities Of Anonymous” wording, which increases orientation cost for newcomers.

The most important practical conclusion is that readers usually can reach the right material, but they often have to understand the site’s internal taxonomy before they can move confidently. The footer is currently doing more information-architecture work than the header, the search label overpromises compared with the visible collection-specific filter behavior, and some key routes are isolated or incomplete, especially the Research Archive, Organizations Directory, explicit Anonymous collection landing, and the return path from the sister publication back to the archive.

Public site map

What follows is the public hierarchy I was able to discover, annotated with whether each section is clearly discoverable, absent, duplicated, inconsistently named, or isolated.

Top utility and persistent global navigation

Utility strip
Developments link in the header utility area; destination page title is Current Developments. This is discoverable, but inconsistently named.
Sister publication: International Intelligence. This is clearly discoverable from the utility strip and repeated in page footers.

This menu is consistent across the pages I opened, but it is long for a first-time reader and mixes “learn the site,” “browse research,” “current material,” and “contact” in one plane.

Primary repeated header menu
Home
Developments
Start Here
Intelligence Library
Research Guides
Research Briefs
Methodology
Topic Hubs
About
Contact

Repeated search control
Label: Search 2IA research
Repeated on many pages
Discoverable, but scope is not self-evident from the label alone. On the Intelligence Library page, the visible explanation clarifies that it is a local browser filter of 63 reports, not a global cross-site search.

Core top-level public sections

Home — clearly discoverable; sets mission, routes, and footer taxonomy.
Start Here — clearly discoverable; best first-time-reader route, with evidence layers and the “Who Cares Wizard.”
About — clearly discoverable; best plain-language statement of what 2IA is and is not.
Methodology — clearly discoverable; defines evidence ladder, source classes, confidence labels, minimization, and correction/right of reply.
Current Developments — clearly discoverable, but named as Developments in the header and Current Developments on-page/footer. It is explicitly separated from verified archive findings and currently shows an empty seed state pending first refresh.
Research Archive — discoverable from home cards and footer, but not in the repeated header menu. Publicly present, yet functionally in a prepared/empty state with routing explanations rather than a populated archive.
Intelligence Library — clearly discoverable; the main report corpus, described as 63 reviewed public report adaptations across four collections.
Research Guides — clearly discoverable; 12 cross-report syntheses.
Research Briefs — clearly discoverable; 12 one-report deep dives.
Topic Hubs — clearly discoverable; presented as the canonical public topic-page map.

Trust, standards, and civic-use pages

Public Records and FOIA — discoverable from home cards, Start Here, footer, and trust navigation. Strongly connected to action-oriented usage.
Corrections and Right of Reply — discoverable from footers and trust pages; clearly explains the contents of a correction request.
Privacy Policy — discoverable from footers and trust pages; unusually explicit about no analytics, no third-party trackers, and local-only wizard state.
Contact — discoverable in header and footer; explains what ordinary contact is for and what not to send.
Lawful Contact — discoverable from footer/contact area rather than the header; a specialized contact-boundary page.
Ethics and Civil Liberties — discoverable from trust navigation/footer; appears to function as a standards hub.

Anonymous-related layers

Anonymous as a major research collection is stated in About, but “Anonymous Research Collection” is not surfaced as a named landing page in the main navigation. Instead, Anonymous content is split across several destinations.
Research Guides contains three clearly labeled Anonymous guides:
Anonymous: Origins, Identity, and Public Myth
Anonymous: Structure, Coordination, and Fragmentation
Anonymous: Claims, Attribution, Law, and Media
Research Briefs contains seven Anonymous briefs covering origins, structure, campaigns, court treatment, symbols, geopolitical crises, and comparison with other leaderless movements.
Anonymous Hacktivist Collective exists as a standalone topic page. It is publicly reachable and strongly framed as non-operational, but it is not named as the formal landing page for an “Anonymous Research Collection,” and its breadcrumb is just Home > Anonymous Hacktivist Collective, leaving its parent layer ambiguous. This makes it discoverable by search and related links, but somewhat isolated in IA terms.

Topic/issue pages discovered

I discovered an extensive layer of topic pages and issue pages beyond the named Topic Hubs landing page. Publicly visible examples include:

These are public and readable, but the relationship between Topic Hubs, Issues, and individual topic pages is not cleanly explained in navigation. Some pages read like canonical hubs, others like overlapping issue maps, and some legacy or alternate labels remain visible.

Metadata and Identity
Metadata Is Identity
Keyword Monitoring
AI Surveillance
Open-Source Intelligence
Influence Operations and Media Literacy
Anonymous Hacktivist Collective
Issues

Public search, directory, feed, and sister link

Public search — discoverable as a repeated search box, but publicly explained as a local filter at least on some collection pages. I did not locate a separate dedicated global search-results page during review.
Organizations Directory — publicly available and well structured, but isolated from the main navigation; I observed it from the home page and by direct discovery, not from the repeated header/footer.
Public feed — discoverable as Local Atom Feed in footers and on Current Developments. The linked feed target appears to be developments.atom. In this browsing environment the direct fetch returned an error, so I can confirm the public link’s existence but not independently inspect its payload here.
Public sitemap — I did not encounter a sitemap link in the visible navigation or footer structures on the pages reviewed. The site’s repeated footer groups do not list one.

Journey scorecard

Score summary

Journey	Discoverability	Terminology	Effort	Orientation	Successful completion
Plain explanation of 2IA and how to use it	9	7	9	8	9
Anonymous origins, structure, campaigns, symbols, legal cases, attribution without operational instructions	8	7	8	8	9
Journalist verifying disputed influence-operation claims	7	7	8	8	9
Compare oversight and remedy across countries	7	7	8	8	8
Find newest developments and distinguish feed from archive	8	8	9	8	6
Request correction or right of reply	7	8	8	8	6
Find sister publication and return to archive	8	8	9	6	5

Observed journeys

Journey 1 A new reader can complete this journey well by starting on Home, then following Start Here, and then optionally About or Methodology. That is a one- to two-click route. The most helpful terms are “Start Here,” “What exactly is being claimed?,” and the evidence-layer explanation of Intelligence Library, Research Briefs, Research Guides, and Methods and public records. The most confusing term is the site name itself: Start Here has to explain that the “2” means the two initial I’s in International Intelligence, and About separately clarifies that Anonymous is a major research collection rather than the identity of the publication. The destination mostly matches the promise; the reader can clearly find next steps and return to the broader collection through both breadcrumbs and footer menus.

Journey 2 This is one of the site’s strongest research journeys. From Home, a reader can choose Research Guides or Research Briefs. In two clicks, the reader can reach the Anonymous guide/brief stack: origins, structure, campaigns, court treatment, symbols, and geopolitical claims. The terminology is somewhat specialized, but the pages themselves do real explanatory work by separating self-claims, legal records, court findings, media labeling, and unresolved uncertainty. Just as important, these pages are explicit that operationally harmful detail is omitted. There were no major dead ends on the guide/brief route, and both related-reading links and “All Research Briefs/All Research Guides” make return travel straightforward. The only real IA weakness is that the site does not front this as a single named Anonymous Research Collection landing page, so first-time readers must infer the collection from several separate surfaces.

Journey 3 A journalist can reach the clearest route in two clicks: Home → Research Briefs → Information Operations: An Attribution Ladder for Neutral Reporting. The promise matches the destination well. The brief explicitly distinguishes content falsity, coordination, operator identity, sponsor, intent, reach, and effect, and Start Here independently reinforces that observed event, actor identity, coordination, sponsorship, intent, reach, and effect should be separated before accepting a claim. Terminology is more advanced here than in Journey 1, but the brief itself defines the differences rather than assuming them. There were no dead ends on the route I followed, and the page offers related briefs plus methodology for next steps and return.

Journey 4 A reader comparing intelligence oversight and remedy across countries can get there in two clicks through Research Briefs, using Intelligence Oversight: Powers, Access, and Remedy. This brief is very strong on content fit: it specifically compares authorization, inspection, review, parliamentary scrutiny, complaint standing, adjudication, publication, and remedy across eight jurisdictions. The terminology is moderately technical, but the brief explicitly explains why “independent oversight” is not enough as a label and why ex ante authorization, ex post review, and adjudication are different functions. Related guides and the “All Research Briefs / All Research Guides” links make the next step and the return path clear.

Journey 5 For a reader wanting the newest developments, the route is easy: Home → Developments in one click. The page does an excellent job distinguishing current feed material from archive findings. It says every entry should name source, evidence class, publication date, and freshness state, and it separately warns that a live feed records publication activity but does not settle the underlying claim. It also exposes retrieval timing by showing refresh status and cache window. The problem is practical completion: the page is currently empty, stating that no scheduled refresh has completed and that the installation is serving a bundled empty seed. So orientation is good, but successful completion is only partial because there is no live material to inspect.

Journey 6 If the starting point is a page about the subject, this route is short: for example, Anonymous Hacktivist Collective → Correction Request in one click via the footer; similarly, many pages expose Corrections and Right of Reply in the footer/trust area. The correction page clearly tells a subject what to send: page, sentence, source issue, proposed correction, evidence, and whether the change affects the conclusion. The problem is final execution. The site explains the correction standard well, but the Contact page also says that if no direct inbox is configured, readers should use listed contact paths, and it explicitly notes that no PGP key or Signal route is published in this source-controlled site. So the informational route is clear, but the concrete submission endpoint is not equally clear from the public pages I reviewed.

Journey 7 Finding the sister publication is easy: the link is in the utility strip and repeated in page footers, and the sister site clearly presents itself as current/public-intelligence news and a desk with cache-generation timing. Returning to the archive is weaker. On the sister publication home page I observed menu items such as Home, Intelligence Desk, Research, Methodology, Records Toolkit, Sources, and About, but I did not observe an explicit “2IA,” “Archive,” or “Back to 2IA” return link in the visible menu excerpt. So discovery of the sister destination is strong, but the round-trip architecture depends too much on browser-back behavior rather than a designed two-way bridge.

Area	Assessment
Header and mobile navigation	The repeated public header is consistent, and a visible Toggle menu suggests a mobile pattern is present. But the information load is high: the header mixes ten destinations, plus a utility strip and a repeated search control. For a first-time reader, it presents the publication’s internal taxonomy before the reader has learned that taxonomy.
Footer organization	The footer is actually the strongest organizational device on the site. Its grouping into Explore, Trust and standards, Participate, and Contact is clearer than the header, and it exposes critical destinations such as Research Archive, Privacy Policy, Corrections, Lawful Contact, and the feed. The weakness is that key destinations become easier to find in the footer than in the main navigation.
Search labels and result quality	The label Search 2IA research reads like a broad site search. On the Intelligence Library page, however, the visible explanation says Search all 63 public report adaptations and clarifies that it filters locally by title, collection, subject tag, or summary, with no query leaving the browser. That is a good implementation promise, but a confusing public label. The visible report cards appear rich and likely useful once the reader is in the Library, but the label does not clearly signal that scope.
Breadcrumb consistency	Breadcrumbs are good on Research Guides and Research Briefs, where pages show paths like `Home > Research Guides > page` or `Home > Research Briefs > page`. They are weaker on standalone topic pages such as Anonymous Hacktivist Collective or Metadata and Identity, where the breadcrumb only shows `Home > page`, which hides the parent layer and weakens orientation.
Page-title consistency	The live pages I opened use the International Intelligence Archive brand in page titles. But search-engine snippets and some discoverable pages still expose older “Two Identities Of Anonymous” framing or older identity-language such as Two Identities. This is a real public inconsistency.
Collection and subcollection hierarchy	The underlying hierarchy exists, but it is not plain enough for first-time readers. Start Here defines the evidence layers better than the navigation does: Library = report corpus, Briefs = one-report explorations, Guides = cross-report syntheses, Methods/Public Records = trust pages. That explanation should not be buried inside Start Here. Meanwhile, Topic Hubs, Issues, dossiers, and research files blur together.
Related-reading links	Related-reading is strong on guides and briefs. Guides expose connected briefs, related guides, and return links to all guides/reports. Briefs expose related briefs, connected guides, and previous/next navigation. Standalone topic pages are weaker and often end without the same contextual scaffolding.
Previous/next navigation	Previous/next controls are present on Briefs and some Guides, which is excellent for serial exploration. That pattern does not appear consistently on standalone issue/topic pages.
Distinction among reports, briefs, guides, dossiers, hubs, archives, updates, and developments	This is the largest classification problem on the site. Briefs and Guides are fairly well defined once a reader reaches Start Here or the collection landing pages. But Archive, Intelligence Library, Topic Hubs, Issues, dossiers, research files, and Developments create overlapping mental models. The current/developments layer is well conceptually separated from evergreen material; the overlap is stronger among archive/library/hub/issue/dossier terms.
Page length and progressive disclosure	Several key pages are long and rhetoric-heavy before the reader reaches the practical index. Intelligence Library runs hundreds of lines, Research Archive is long despite being unpopulated, Issues is lengthy, and many pages repeat the same global boilerplate. The site does use headings and cards, but the first useful scanning layer often comes later than it should.
Repetition that makes pages appear larger without increasing findability	The clearest example is Research Guides, where the three Anonymous guide cards are shown and then shown again as the “Cross-report index.” Boilerplate sections like “Evidence Before Position” and footer identity text recur sitewide, which is defensible editorially but increases visual length. The effect is that pages can feel larger than they are navigationally richer.
Whether calls to action compete with research navigation	On the home page, the first screen contains several route choices at once: Start Here, Browse Intelligence Library, Read Research files, Request Records, Correct Flags and claims, then later Newsletter, Support, and Volunteer. The competing options are mission-aligned, but they still create a branching problem before the reader has learned the difference among the content layers.
Whether internal names are meaningful to a first-time reader	Mixed. “Start Here,” “About,” “Methodology,” “Privacy Policy,” and “Corrections and Right of Reply” are clear. “Intelligence Library,” “Topic Hubs,” “Dossier,” “research files,” “Two Identities,” and sometimes even “Developments” require interpretation or prior site knowledge. Start Here has to do translation work that the navigation itself should already be doing.
Whether current material and evergreen material are visibly separated	Conceptually, yes. Current Developments explicitly says it is a live publication-activity feed, not proof of underlying claims, and the archive/library/guides/briefs layers are presented as source-preserved, reviewed, or verify-before-current-use material. The weakness is practical: the Current Developments page is empty, and the Archive is still in a prepared state, so the separation is more conceptual than fully lived in current use.

URL	Link or label	Expected destination	Actual result	Severity	Recommended correction
`https://2ia.org/developments/`	“Developments” / “Current Developments”	One stable public name for the current-material layer	Header uses Developments, breadcrumb/title use Current Developments, and footer uses Current Developments.	Medium	Pick one label and use it everywhere, preferably in header, title, breadcrumb, footer, and feed text.
`https://2ia.org/research-archive/`	“Research Archive” / “View Archive” / “Read Research files”	A populated archive or at least a clearly defined archive landing layer	The archive is public but still “being prepared” and routes readers elsewhere while published work grows. Home language suggests a fuller archive than the page currently delivers.	High	Either present it honestly as a temporary archive landing page or hide/archive-deemphasize it until it contains browsable published work.
Repeated sitewide control	“Search 2IA research”	A clear sitewide search or a clearly scoped collection search	The label reads broad, but the Intelligence Library explains that search is a local browser filter of 63 report adaptations.	High	Rename it by scope: “Filter this collection” on collection pages, and reserve “Search site” for a true global search.
`https://2ia.org/organizations/`	Organizations Directory	A standard navigational destination exposed from global nav or footer	The directory exists and is useful, but I observed it from home/direct discovery rather than the repeated header/footer structures. It is therefore public but isolated.	Medium	Add Organizations Directory to the footer’s Explore group and to a Research/Resources landing page.
Anonymous collection across multiple URLs	“Anonymous remains a major research collection”	One landing page named and navigated as the Anonymous collection	Anonymous content is split across About, three Guides, seven Briefs, and the standalone Anonymous Hacktivist Collective page, but there is no clearly surfaced landing page called Anonymous Research Collection.	High	Create one canonical collection landing page named “Anonymous Research Collection” with direct links to briefs, guides, topic pages, and legal/media methodology.
`https://2ia.org/issues/` and `https://2ia.org/topic-hubs/`	“Issues” vs “Topic Hubs”	One canonical map of themes/topics/issues	Both pages act as thematic entry maps. `Issues` is extensive and public, but it is not in the main repeated nav and overlaps with `Topic Hubs`, creating a parallel IA.	High	Merge them into one canonical layer. Keep one name, one landing page, and one plain-language definition.
`https://2ia.org/metadata-and-identity/` and `https://2ia.org/metadata-is-identity/`	“Metadata and Identity” vs “Metadata Is Identity”	One obvious canonical destination for the topic	Both pages are public, both cover the same problem space, and both are plausible entry points for the same reader question.	High	Consolidate to one canonical page and redirect or clearly differentiate purpose if both must exist.
`https://2ia.org/contact/` and `https://2ia.org/corrections-and-right-of-reply/`	Correction / right of reply path	A reader can both understand and execute the request path	The correction page is clear about what to send, but Contact says an inbox may not be configured and no PGP/Signal route is published. The policy is visible; the execution route is not equally concrete.	High	Publish one stable, reader-safe correction/right-of-reply channel with clear expected turnaround and scope.
`https://internationalintelligence.org/`	Sister publication link	Reader can find the news site and then clearly return to the archive	The outgoing link is clear from 2IA, but on the sister-publication home I did not observe a visible return-to-2IA/archive link in the exposed menu.	Medium	Add a clearly labeled reciprocal link such as “Back to 2IA Archive.”
`https://2ia.org/research-guides/`	Research Guides landing page	One pass over each guide card	The page repeats the three Anonymous guide cards and associated summaries before and again inside the cross-report index, increasing length without improving findability.	Medium	Show each guide once, then use filters/tags or a separate “See all guides” index below.
`https://2ia.org/anonymous-hacktivist-collective/`	Anonymous topic page breadcrumb	A breadcrumb exposing the parent layer	The breadcrumb shows `Home > Anonymous Hacktivist Collective`, not `Home > Topic Hubs/Issues > Anonymous…`, so the parent collection is hidden.	Medium	Add parent-aware breadcrumbs for all standalone topic pages.
Search-engine-facing public behavior	Titles/snippets around 2IA branding	One stable public project identity	Live page titles use International Intelligence Archive, but search snippets and legacy-discoverable pages still surface Two Identities Of Anonymous or older identity-language.	High	Unify visible titles, descriptions, and naming across all public entry pages so searchers do not meet two projects at once.

Duplication and naming matrix

Term	What it appears to mean now	Problem	Recommendation
Archive	Sometimes the whole site, sometimes the `Research Archive` section, sometimes the broader mission identity.	Too broad; one word is doing three jobs.	Retain, but define it as the umbrella site/publication.
Research Archive	Intended publication archive for briefings, source notes, confidence labels, and archive filters.	Publicly present but currently semi-empty, so readers may not distinguish it from the broader archive identity.	Retain, but use only for the published-article/archive landing, not for the whole site.
Intelligence Library	63 report adaptations across four collections.	“Intelligence” can sound like agency intel rather than a report library; newcomers need translation.	Rename or define. Best option: “Research Library” or “Report Library,” unless the current title is consistently explained everywhere.
Research Brief	One-report deep exploration with checkpoints, limitations, and related guides.	This is comparatively clear.	Retain.
Research Guide	Cross-report synthesis showing agreement, disagreement, gaps, and tensions.	Also comparatively clear once encountered.	Retain.
Topic Hub	Canonical public topic page.	Overlaps heavily with `Issues`.	Merge with Issues. Keep one public term.
Issues	Permanent issue map with specific issue cards and suggested next steps.	Also overlaps heavily with Topic Hubs.	Merge with Topic Hubs.
Dossier	Card label used inside archive/topic pages for actionable subtopics or frameworks.	Readers can infer a standalone collection that I did not find as a primary landing page.	Rename or define. If there is no public dossiers collection, use “evidence card,” “case card,” or “field note.”
Research file / Research files	Home-page language for reading the archive or corpus.	Ambiguous: not a top-level section name elsewhere.	Remove or rename to the actual destination type: “report,” “brief,” or “archive.”
Current Developments / Developments	The current-material feed layer.	Same thing, two public labels.	Unify under one name.
Anonymous Research Collection	Concept stated in About, not surfaced as a collection landing page.	The concept exists, but the navigational object does not.	Create and retain as an explicit collection landing page.

A clearer public model would reduce the header to no more than seven primary destinations and move definitional work out of Start Here and into the navigation itself.

Recommended primary header

Start Here
Topics
Research
Developments
Public Records
Method
About

This keeps the header reader-oriented: begin, browse themes, browse research objects, check current material, take civic action, inspect method, understand the publisher. Contact, corrections, privacy, support, newsletter, organizations, and the sister publication should move to secondary/header utility or footer surfaces rather than competing at the first decision point. This recommendation follows the site’s existing strengths in Start Here, Methodology, Public Records, and the clear distinction it already tries to make between preserved analysis and current developments.

Recommended mobile order

Use the same order as the desktop header, with the search/filter control positioned beneath it and scoped correctly to the page: Start Here → Topics → Research → Developments → Public Records → Method → About → Search/Filter. This matches the order of a first-time reader’s likely questions far better than the current mix of product-like nouns. The visible presence of a Toggle menu suggests a mobile entry point already exists, but the current top-level item count is too high for a guided mobile experience.

Recommended footer structure

Keep a four-column footer, but tune it around reader jobs:

Research
Research landing
Briefs
Guides
Library
Anonymous Research Collection
Topics
Topics/Issues landing
Public Records
AI and automated decisions
Metadata and identity
Influence operations
Organizations Directory
Trust
Methodology
Corrections and right of reply
Privacy
Ethics and civil liberties
Contact
Current
Developments
Local Atom Feed
Sister publication
Newsletter

This builds on the site’s already strong footer pattern while making it a better reflection of how readers actually think.

Recommended Start Here sequence

The current Start Here page is one of the site’s best assets. I would preserve it, but reorder it into a shorter public sequence:

What 2IA is
How to read a claim
Choose your question
Choose your depth
Topic explainer
Brief
Guide
Library/report
Choose your action
Request records
Correct a claim
Contact
Check what is current vs preserved

That sequence is already latent in the existing page; it simply needs stronger visual hierarchy and fewer internal labels up front.

Recommended collection landing pages

Create one parent Research landing page that defines all research object types in plain language before the reader has to infer them:

Library = source-preserved public report adaptations
Briefs = one-report analytical deep dives
Guides = cross-report syntheses
Archive = all published research in one browseable index
Developments = current publication-activity feed, not settled findings

This definition set already exists in fragments across Start Here, the Library, Briefs, Guides, and Developments pages; the problem is that a new reader has to assemble it themselves.

Recommended contextual related-reading rules

Every leaf page should expose exactly three next steps:

One broader page — its parent collection or topic
One adjacent page — the next brief/guide/topic
One action page — Methodology, Public Records, or Corrections

Research Briefs and Research Guides already approximate this behavior. The same discipline should be applied to standalone topic pages, issue pages, and special-purpose pages like Anonymous Hacktivist Collective.

Ten highest-impact improvements

Reader benefit: removes the “is this one project or two?” problem immediately. The current public experience exposes both International Intelligence Archive and Two Identities Of Anonymous framing.

Unify public naming and branding across live pages, search snippets, legacy pages, and navigation labels.

Reader benefit: turns internal taxonomy into reader-facing wayfinding.

Create one canonical “Research” landing page that defines Library, Briefs, Guides, Archive, and Developments in plain language.

Reader benefit: eliminates a major branch-point confusion and removes a parallel IA.

Merge Topic Hubs and Issues into a single thematic entry layer.

Reader benefit: makes one of the site’s most distinctive collections discoverable without prior terminology knowledge.

Publish a real, explicit “Anonymous Research Collection” landing page.

Reader benefit: prevents false expectation and reduces dead-end feeling.

Either populate the Research Archive as a browsable archive or relabel it transparently as a transitional landing page.

Reader benefit: better trust and lower cognitive load. Right now the label sounds broad while at least one public implementation is explicitly local-only.

Fix search labeling so readers know whether they are filtering a collection or searching the site.

Reader benefit: surfaces a useful civic-resource layer that is currently too isolated.

Expose the Organizations Directory in the footer and in the new Research/Topics structure.

Reader benefit: easier return to the broader collection and better orientation on standalone topic pages.

Standardize breadcrumbs for all leaf pages so every page shows its parent collection or topic.

Reader benefit: completes the public round trip between current news and evergreen archive material.

Add a reciprocal “Back to 2IA Archive” path on the sister publication.

Reader benefit: faster comprehension, better mobile reading, less perceived sprawl. Research Guides, the archive layer, and several other pages are longer than their findability payoff justifies.

Reduce repetition and shorten collection landing pages so the first useful scanning layer appears earlier.