supplementary-engagement

name	supplementary-engagement
description	Use when correlating sentiment scores with engagement metrics, measuring thread depth as an influence signal, auditing content exports for PII exposure, identifying discursive catalysts in comment threads, or needing scatter plots of sentiment vs. engagement with statistical significance testing

Supplementary Engagement Analyses

Overview

Three complementary analyses that answer questions engagement metrics alone cannot: (1) does emotionally charged content actually correlate with high engagement, (2) which threads sustain influence long after the original poster leaves, and (3) what non-public data is exposed in the corpus. The core principle: engagement is multi-dimensional -- score counts measure attention, sentiment-engagement correlation measures resonance, thread depth measures influence persistence, and a privacy audit measures risk.

When to Use

• Corpus has both engagement metrics (scores, votes, likes, reactions) AND text content with measurable sentiment
• Threaded discussions with reply chains (comments referencing parents)
• Content export that may contain non-public data (IPs, emails, linked identities)
• Need to distinguish authentic voice from crowd-pleasing content
• Investigating whether high-scoring content is also the most emotionally charged
• Identifying "discursive catalysts" -- posts/comments that spark deep conversation threads

When NOT to use:

• Corpus has no engagement metrics at all (skip Analysis 1; Analyses 2-3 may still apply)
• Content is flat (no reply structure) -- skip Analysis 2
• Corpus is already fully public with no PII risk -- skip Analysis 3
• Need causal claims about what drives engagement (this skill measures correlation, not causation)

digraph analysis_selection {
    rankdir=TB;
    node [shape=diamond, style=filled, fillcolor="#f0f0f0"];

    has_engagement [label="Has engagement\nmetrics + text?"];
    has_threads [label="Has threaded\nreply chains?"];
    has_nonpublic [label="Has non-public\ndata fields?"];

    a1 [label="Analysis 1:\nSentiment-Engagement\nCorrelation", shape=box, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    a2 [label="Analysis 2:\nThread Depth &\nInfluence Mapping", shape=box, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    a3 [label="Analysis 3:\nPrivacy Audit", shape=box, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];

    skip1 [label="Skip Analysis 1\nNote: insufficient data", shape=box, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    skip2 [label="Skip Analysis 2\nNote: no reply structure", shape=box, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    skip3 [label="Skip Analysis 3\nNote: no PII risk", shape=box, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];

    has_engagement -> a1 [label="yes"];
    has_engagement -> skip1 [label="no"];
    has_engagement -> has_threads [label=""];
    has_threads -> a2 [label="yes"];
    has_threads -> skip2 [label="no"];
    has_threads -> has_nonpublic [label=""];
    has_nonpublic -> a3 [label="yes"];
    has_nonpublic -> skip3 [label="no"];
}

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track progress:

Supplementary Engagement Analyses Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Validate data prerequisites for each analysis
- [ ] Step 2: Sentiment-Engagement Correlation (Analysis 1)
- [ ] Step 3: Thread Depth & Influence Mapping (Analysis 2)
- [ ] Step 4: Privacy Audit (Analysis 3)
- [ ] Step 5: Cross-analysis synthesis
- [ ] Step 6: Write findings to docs/analysis/09-supplementary-engagement.md

Quick Reference

Analysis	Input Required	Key Output	Minimum Data
Sentiment-Engagement Correlation	Text + numeric engagement metric	Scatter plot, Pearson/Spearman r, p-value	30+ items with both fields
Thread Depth & Influence Mapping	Reply chains with parent references	Depth distribution, catalyst identification	20+ threads with 3+ levels
Privacy Audit	Any non-public fields	PII inventory, risk classification	Any corpus (always run if data exists)

Step 1: Validate Data Prerequisites

Before running any analysis, verify what is available.

def validate_prerequisites(df, text_col, engagement_col, parent_col=None):
    """Check which analyses are viable given the data."""
    viable = {}

    # Analysis 1: Sentiment-Engagement Correlation
    has_text = text_col in df.columns and df[text_col].notna().sum() > 0
    has_engagement = (engagement_col in df.columns
                      and df[engagement_col].notna().sum() > 0)
    n_both = df[[text_col, engagement_col]].dropna().shape[0] if (
        has_text and has_engagement) else 0
    viable['sentiment_engagement'] = {
        'can_run': n_both >= 30,
        'n': n_both,
        'reason': f"{n_both} items with both text and engagement"
                  if n_both >= 30
                  else f"Only {n_both} items (need 30+)"
    }

    # Analysis 2: Thread Depth
    has_parents = (parent_col and parent_col in df.columns
                   and df[parent_col].notna().sum() > 0)
    viable['thread_depth'] = {
        'can_run': has_parents,
        'reason': "Reply chain structure available"
                  if has_parents
                  else "No parent references found"
    }

    
    viable[] = {
        : (df) > ,
        : 
    }

     viable

If an analysis cannot run: Document why in the output report. Do not skip silently. Do not fabricate results for missing data.

Step 2: Analysis 1 -- Sentiment-Engagement Correlation

Question: Is high-scoring content also the most emotionally charged? Or does moderate, measured content perform equally well?

2a. Score Sentiment

Use a sentiment analyzer appropriate to the corpus domain. For general-purpose text:

from textblob import TextBlob
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from scipy import stats

def score_sentiment(texts):
    """Return polarity (-1 to +1) and subjectivity (0 to 1)."""
    results = []
    for text in texts:
        if not text or not isinstance(text, str):
            results.append({'polarity': np.nan, 'subjectivity': np.nan})
            continue
        blob = TextBlob(str(text))
        results.append({
            'polarity': blob.sentiment.polarity,
            'subjectivity': blob.sentiment.subjectivity
        })
    return pd.DataFrame(results)

# Compute absolute polarity (emotional intensity regardless of direction)
df['abs_polarity'] = df['polarity'].abs()

Why absolute polarity matters: Both strongly positive AND strongly negative content may correlate with engagement. Testing raw polarity alone misses the "controversy drives engagement" pattern.

2b. Correlation Analysis

def correlate_sentiment_engagement(df, sentiment_col, engagement_col,
                                    min_n=30):
    """Compute Pearson and Spearman correlations with significance."""
    clean = df[[sentiment_col, engagement_col]].dropna()
    n = len(clean)

    if n < min_n:
        return {
            'error': f'Insufficient data: {n} items (minimum {min_n})',
            'n': n
        }

    # Pearson (assumes linear relationship, normal distribution)
    pearson_r, pearson_p = stats.pearsonr(
        clean[sentiment_col], clean[engagement_col]
    )

    # Spearman (rank-based, no distribution assumption -- preferred)
    spearman_r, spearman_p = stats.spearmanr(
        clean[sentiment_col], clean[engagement_col]
    )

    return {
        'n': n,
        'pearson_r': round(pearson_r, 4),
        'pearson_p': round(pearson_p, 6),
        'spearman_r': round(spearman_r, 4),
        'spearman_p': round(spearman_p, 6),
        'significant_at_05': spearman_p < 0.05,
        'significant_at_01': spearman_p < 0.01,
    }

# Run for BOTH raw polarity and absolute polarity
corr_raw = correlate_sentiment_engagement(df, 'polarity', 'score')
corr_abs = correlate_sentiment_engagement(df, 'abs_polarity', 'score')
corr_subj = correlate_sentiment_engagement(df, 'subjectivity', )

2c. Interpretation Framework

Spearman r	Strength	Interpretation
0.00 - 0.10	Negligible	Sentiment does not predict engagement
0.10 - 0.30	Weak	Minor tendency; other factors dominate
0.30 - 0.50	Moderate	Meaningful relationship worth investigating
0.50 - 0.70	Strong	Sentiment is a significant engagement predictor
0.70 - 1.00	Very strong	Rare in real-world content data; verify for artifacts

Always report: The correlation coefficient, the p-value, and the sample size. A "significant" correlation with n=30 means something different from one with n=3000.

Key distinction -- authentic voice vs. crowd-pleasing: If absolute polarity correlates strongly with engagement but raw polarity does not, the pattern is "emotional intensity drives engagement regardless of direction." If only positive polarity correlates, the pattern is "crowd-pleasing positivity." Report which pattern the data shows.

Step 3: Analysis 2 -- Thread Depth and Influence Mapping

Question: Which threads sustain conversation long after the original poster leaves? These are "discursive catalysts" -- content that triggers self-sustaining discussion.

3a. Compute Thread Depth

def compute_thread_depths(df, id_col, parent_col):
    """Build reply tree and compute depth for each item.

    Depth 0 = top-level post/comment (no parent).
    Depth N = N levels of replies deep.
    """
    # Build parent lookup
    parent_map = dict(zip(df[id_col], df[parent_col]))

    def get_depth(item_id, memo={}):
        if item_id in memo:
            return memo[item_id]
        parent = parent_map.get(item_id)
        if pd.isna(parent) or parent not in parent_map:
            memo[item_id] = 0
            return 0
        depth = 1 + get_depth(parent, memo)
        memo[item_id] = depth
        return depth

    depths = {item_id: get_depth(item_id) for item_id in df[id_col]}
    return depths

def build_thread_stats(df, id_col, parent_col, author_col=None):
    """Compute per-thread statistics."""
    depths = compute_thread_depths(df, id_col, parent_col)
    df['thread_depth'] = df[id_col].map(depths)

    # Find root of each thread
    def get_root(item_id):
        parent = parent_map.get(item_id)
        if pd.isna(parent) or parent not in parent_map:
            return item_id
        return get_root(parent)

    parent_map = ((df[id_col], df[parent_col]))
    df[] = df[id_col].apply(
         x: get_root(x)
    )

    
    thread_stats = df.groupby().agg(
        max_depth=(, ),
        reply_count=(, ),
        unique_authors=(author_col, )  author_col 
            (, ),
    ).reset_index()

     thread_stats

3b. Identify Discursive Catalysts

A discursive catalyst is a thread where:

1. Max depth >= 4 (conversation goes 4+ levels deep)
2. Unique participants >= 3 (not just a two-person back-and-forth)
3. Original poster's last reply is at depth < max_depth / 2 (thread continues well beyond OP's participation)

def find_catalysts(thread_stats, df, author_col, id_col,
                   min_depth=4, min_participants=3):
    """Identify threads that sustain conversation beyond OP."""
    catalysts = []
    for _, thread in thread_stats.iterrows():
        if (thread['max_depth'] < min_depth
                or thread['unique_authors'] < min_participants):
            continue

        root_id = thread['thread_root']
        thread_items = df[df['thread_root'] == root_id]

        # Find OP (author of root item)
        root_row = thread_items[thread_items[id_col] == root_id]
        if root_row.empty:
            continue
        op_author = root_row[author_col].iloc[0]

        # Find OP's deepest participation
        op_items = thread_items[thread_items[author_col] == op_author]
        op_max_depth = op_items['thread_depth'].max()

        # Catalyst = thread continued well beyond OP
        if op_max_depth < thread['max_depth'] / 2:
            catalysts.append({
                'thread_root': root_id,
                'max_depth': thread['max_depth'],
                'reply_count': thread['reply_count'],
                'unique_authors': thread['unique_authors'],
                'op_max_depth': op_max_depth,
                'continuation_ratio': round(
                    1 - (op_max_depth / thread['max_depth']), 
                ),
            })

     pd.DataFrame(catalysts)

3c. Thread Depth Distribution

Report the distribution shape, not just the mean:

Metric	What It Reveals
Median depth	Typical conversation length
90th percentile depth	Where the deep discussions are
% threads at depth 1 only	Fraction of content with zero follow-up
% threads at depth 5+	Fraction with sustained discourse
Catalyst count / total threads	Rate of self-sustaining discussions

Step 4: Analysis 3 -- Privacy Audit

Question: What non-public data is exposed in this corpus, and what is its risk level?

This analysis is NOT optional. If the corpus contains any data, run the privacy audit. Do not assume all data is safe.

4a. Systematic PII Identification

import re

PII_PATTERNS = {
    'email': {
        'pattern': r'[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}',
        'risk': 'HIGH',
        'action': 'Redact before any redistribution',
    },
    'ip_address': {
        'pattern': r'\b(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}\b',
        'risk': 'HIGH',
        'action': 'Redact; can geolocate to city level',
    },
    'phone_number': {
        'pattern': r'\b(?:\+?1[-.\s]?)?\(?\d{3}\)?[-.\s]?\d{3}[-.\s]?\d{4}\b',
        'risk': 'HIGH',
        'action': 'Redact before any redistribution',
    },
    'url_with_username': {
        'pattern': r'https?://[^\s]*(?:user|profile|u)/[^\s/]+',
        'risk': 'MEDIUM',
        'action': 'Assess if profile is public; flag if not',
    },
    'date_of_birth': {
        'pattern': r'\b(?:born|dob|birthday)[:\s]+\d{1,2}[/\-]\d{1,2}[/\-]\d{2,4}\b',
        'risk': 'MEDIUM',
        'action': 'Flag; sensitive when combined with other fields',
    },
}

def audit_pii(df, text_columns=None):
    """Scan all string columns for PII patterns.

    Returns inventory of findings with risk levels.
    """
    if text_columns is :
        text_columns = df.select_dtypes(include=).columns.tolist()

    findings = []
     col  text_columns:
         pii_type, config  PII_PATTERNS.items():
            matches = df[col].dropna()..contains(
                config[], regex=, na=
            )
            match_count = matches.()
             match_count > :
                findings.append({
                    : col,
                    : pii_type,
                    : (match_count),
                    : config[],
                    : config[],
                    : matches[matches].index[:].tolist(),
                })
     pd.DataFrame(findings)  findings  pd.DataFrame()

4b. Column-Level Risk Classification

Beyond regex pattern matching, classify columns by their structural risk:

Column Type	Risk Level	Rationale
IP addresses	HIGH	Geolocatable, linkable to ISP records
Email addresses	HIGH	Directly identifies individuals
Phone numbers	HIGH	Directly identifies individuals
Linked account identifiers	HIGH	Cross-platform identity linking
Location fields (city, zip)	MEDIUM	Quasi-identifier when combined
Timestamps with sub-minute precision	MEDIUM	Behavioral fingerprinting potential
User-agent strings	MEDIUM	Device fingerprinting potential
Usernames (public platforms)	LOW	Already public, but aggregation increases exposure
Content body text	LOW*	May contain self-disclosed PII within text

*Content body is LOW structurally but must still be scanned for embedded PII (Step 4a).

4c. Risk Tiering

Classify the overall corpus risk:

Tier	Criteria	Action
CRITICAL	Contains HIGH-risk PII in 3+ columns or HIGH-risk PII in content body	Do NOT proceed with any analysis that could redistribute this data without redaction
ELEVATED	Contains HIGH-risk PII in 1-2 structural columns only	Redact HIGH-risk columns; proceed with caution
MODERATE	Contains MEDIUM-risk PII only	Note in report; apply principle of minimal disclosure
LOW	No PII detected or only LOW-risk fields	Proceed normally; note audit was performed

Step 5: Cross-Analysis Synthesis

After running all viable analyses, synthesize findings:

1. Sentiment-Depth intersection: Do discursive catalysts have different sentiment profiles than shallow threads? Emotionally charged posts that also generate deep threads are the strongest engagement signals.

2. Privacy-Engagement intersection: Are any PII-containing fields correlated with engagement data? If engagement metrics are derived from private interactions (e.g., DMs, saved items), note this in the privacy section.

3. Authentic voice signal: Content with moderate sentiment but high thread depth suggests authentic voice -- it generates conversation through substance, not emotional charge. Content with extreme sentiment and high score but shallow threads suggests crowd-pleasing.

Good Patterns

• Use Spearman over Pearson for sentiment-engagement correlation -- engagement metrics are rarely normally distributed and often have heavy tails
• Measure absolute polarity alongside raw polarity -- emotional intensity matters regardless of positive/negative direction
• Count unique participants per thread, not just reply count -- a 20-reply thread between 2 people differs fundamentally from one with 10 participants
• Always run the privacy audit, even when you think the data is clean -- PII appears in unexpected places (embedded in URLs, self-disclosed in text)
• Report effect sizes alongside p-values -- statistical significance with tiny effect sizes is not practically meaningful

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Why It Fails	Instead
Assuming correlation implies causation	"Positive sentiment causes high engagement" is unsupported by correlation alone	Report "X correlates with Y" not "X causes Y"
Measuring only direct replies	Misses full thread depth; a reply to a reply is depth 2, not 1	Recursively traverse parent chains to compute true depth
Ignoring that high engagement can come from controversy	Treating all high-engagement content as "good" misses negative virality	Segment by sentiment direction: positive-high-engagement vs. negative-high-engagement
Treating all non-public data as equally risky	An IP address is far more dangerous than a public username	Use tiered risk classification (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
Reporting p < 0.05 without effect size	Statistically significant but r = 0.05 is practically meaningless	Always pair p-value with correlation coefficient and interpret both
Conflating thread depth with quality	Deep threads can be flame wars, not substantive discourse	Cross-reference depth with unique participant count and sentiment variance
Running correlation on < 30 data points	Results are unstable and unreliable	Report insufficient data rather than unreliable statistics
Skipping the privacy audit because "it looks clean"	PII hides in text fields, URL parameters, metadata	Always run the systematic scan regardless of initial impression

Boundaries

SHOULD do:

• Correlate sentiment with engagement using Pearson and Spearman with significance testing
• Produce scatter plots of sentiment vs. engagement
• Measure full thread depth from recursive parent traversal
• Identify discursive catalysts (self-sustaining threads beyond OP's participation)
• Systematically scan for PII with regex patterns
• Classify risk levels for all non-public data fields
• Flag risk tiers and recommend handling actions
• Report effect sizes, sample sizes, and confidence caveats

Should NOT do:

• Make causal claims about what drives engagement ("positive posts get more upvotes" is causal; "positive polarity correlates with score at r=0.23" is correlational)
• Expose or redistribute PII found during audit -- findings are for the report only
• Skip the privacy audit under any circumstances when non-public data exists
• Conflate depth with quality without checking participant diversity and sentiment variance
• Report statistical results without sample size context
• Force analysis on insufficient data -- document what cannot be computed and why

Insufficient Data Handling

Condition	Impact	Action
< 30 items with both text and engagement	Correlation analysis is unreliable	Do NOT compute correlation. Report: "Insufficient paired data (n=X, minimum 30). Correlation analysis skipped." List raw descriptive statistics instead (mean, median sentiment; mean, median engagement).
No engagement metrics at all	Analysis 1 is impossible	Skip Analysis 1 entirely. Document: "No engagement metrics available in corpus." Proceed to Analyses 2 and 3.
Reply chains lack parent references	Cannot compute thread depth	Skip Analysis 2. Document: "No parent reference column found. Thread depth analysis requires a parent ID field."
Flat structure (no nesting)	Thread depth is uniformly 0 or 1	Report the flat structure as a finding: "All content is top-level; no threaded discussion structure detected."
< 20 threads with depth >= 2	Catalyst identification is unreliable	Compute depth statistics descriptively but flag: "Insufficient threaded discussions for catalyst identification (n=X threads with depth >= 2)."
No non-public data fields	Analysis 3 has nothing to audit	Report: "Privacy audit complete. No non-public data fields detected in corpus schema. No PII found in content scan." This is still a finding -- the absence of PII is worth documenting.
30-100 items for correlation	Low confidence results	Compute but flag every result as "low confidence (n=X)." Do not draw strong conclusions.
> 100 items for correlation	Standard confidence	Full analysis. Still report n alongside every statistic.

Minimum requirements for meaningful correlation analysis:

• 30+ items with both sentiment and engagement values (absolute minimum; results are exploratory)
• 100+ items for standard-confidence results
• 500+ items for high-confidence results suitable for strong claims
• Engagement metric must have variance (if all items have score=1, correlation is undefined)
• Sentiment must have variance (if all items are neutral, correlation is undefined)

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Using Pearson on engagement data with extreme outliers	Use Spearman (rank-based) as primary; report Pearson as secondary
Computing thread depth iteratively instead of recursively	Use memoized recursive traversal to handle arbitrary nesting
Counting thread depth as "number of replies"	Depth is the longest path from root to leaf, not the total reply count
Treating the privacy audit as optional	It is mandatory whenever non-public data exists in the corpus
Reporting "no PII found" without scanning content body	Structural columns may be clean while text contains self-disclosed PII
Ignoring subjectivity in sentiment analysis	Highly subjective content (opinions, personal stories) has different engagement patterns than objective content
Not segmenting correlation by content type	Overall correlation may mask opposite trends in different content types (posts vs. comments, long vs. short)

Report Output

Write all findings to docs/analysis/09-supplementary-engagement.md with this structure:

# Supplementary Engagement Analyses

## Data Prerequisites
- Corpus size: [N items]
- Items with text + engagement: [N] (Analysis 1 viable: [yes/no])
- Items with parent references: [N] (Analysis 2 viable: [yes/no])
- Non-public data fields: [list or "none"] (Analysis 3 viable: [yes/no])

## Analysis 1: Sentiment-Engagement Correlation

### Methodology
- Sentiment analyzer: [tool/library used]
- Engagement metric: [column name and description]
- Sample size: [N paired observations]

### Sentiment Distribution
- Mean polarity: [value], Median: [value], Std: [value]
- Mean subjectivity: [value], Median: [value]
- Mean absolute polarity: [value]

### Correlation Results

| Metric Pair | Pearson r | Pearson p | Spearman r | Spearman p | n |
|-------------|-----------|-----------|------------|------------|---|
| Polarity vs. Engagement | [r] | [p] | [r] | [p] | [n] |
| Abs. Polarity vs. Engagement | [r] | [p] | [r] | [p] | [n] |
| Subjectivity vs. Engagement | [r] | [p] | [r] | [p] | [n] |

### Interpretation
[Which pattern does the data show: emotional intensity, positive crowd-pleasing,
 or no meaningful correlation? Always state effect size and practical significance.]

### Scatter Plot Description
[Describe the scatter plot shape: linear trend, fan-shaped, clustered, etc.
 Include the plot file path if generated.]

## Analysis 2: Thread Depth and Influence Mapping

### Thread Depth Distribution
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total threads | [N] |
| Median depth | [value] |
| Mean depth | [value] |
| 90th percentile depth | [value] |
| Max depth | [value] |
| Threads at depth 1 only | [N] ([%]) |
| Threads at depth 5+ | [N] ([%]) |

### Discursive Catalysts
[Table of identified catalysts: thread root, max depth, unique participants,
 OP max depth, continuation ratio]

### Influence Patterns
[What types of content generate self-sustaining threads?
 Any correlation between catalyst threads and sentiment profiles?]

## Analysis 3: Privacy Audit

### PII Scan Results
| Column | PII Type | Match Count | Risk Level | Recommended Action |
|--------|----------|-------------|------------|-------------------|
| [col]  | [type]   | [N]         | [HIGH/MED/LOW] | [action]      |


[Table of all non-public columns with risk tier]


[Justification for tier assignment]


[Specific steps based on findings]


[Intersection of sentiment, depth, and privacy findings]


 [Correlation is not causation]
 [Sample size considerations]
 [Analyses skipped and why]
 [Known limitations of sentiment analyzer used]

References

• Sentiment Benchmarking Best Practices (Growth-onomics)
• Social Media Sentiment Analysis (Sprout Social)
• Thread Level and Perceived Persuasiveness (Springer)
• Creating Reply Networks from Comment Threads (Ashford, 2022)
• Predicting Hierarchical Structure of Conversation Threads (PMC)
• Sample Size for Pearson, Kendall, and Spearman Correlations (Psychometrika)
• PII Compliance Checklist 2025 (Sentra)
• NIST SP 800-122: Guide to Protecting PII Confidentiality
• PII Data Classification Best Practices (SearchInform)
• Discourse Analysis Step-by-Step (MAXQDA)