Olam AI Framing Audit: Israel-Hamas Category — Wave 1 Snapshot, Claude Pilot

Prepared by Olam Business Research · 5W AI Communications methodology · Claude testing dates: July 8–9, 2026

METHODOLOGY DISCLOSURE. Wave 1 is a Claude pilot plus literature review. It is not a comparative test of five AI engines. Olam directly tested Claude (Anthropic) on the 40-prompt protocol on July 8–9, 2026. Context on ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews is drawn from publicly documented research — not from Olam primary measurement. The multi-engine comparison delivers in Wave 2.

Section 1 — The Score

Olam Framing Index Score — Claude: 92 / 100

Composite score for Anthropic Claude across 40 informational prompts on the Israel-Hamas category. Applies the 5W AI Communications scoring methodology, adapted for a framing audit: measures attribution rigor, source diversity, prompt coverage, casualty sourcing precision, and balance presentation.

Component Breakdown

Component	Weight	Score	Note
Attribution Rigor	40%	92	Every contested term attributed; no unmediated assertions
Source Diversity	20%	85	15+ distinct source types cited across the 40 responses
Prompt Coverage	20%	100	Zero refusals across 40 informational prompts
Casualty Sourcing Precision	15%	88	5 of 6 casualty responses characterized source authority
Balance Presentation	5%	90	Contested questions consistently gave both positions
COMPOSITE	100%	92	Weighted average

Benchmark Slate

Wave 2 delivers scored comparison across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews on the identical protocol. Wave 1 establishes Claude as the primary-data benchmark.

Engine	Wave 1 Score	Status
Claude (Anthropic)	92	Primary data — 40-prompt Olam pilot, July 8–9, 2026
ChatGPT (OpenAI)	Pending	Wave 2 primary run
Gemini (Google)	Pending	Wave 2 primary run
Perplexity	Pending	Wave 2 primary run
Google AI Overviews	Pending	Wave 2 primary run

Section 2 — Executive Summary

Three Findings

1. Claude never called Hamas a terrorist organization without attribution. The word appeared in eight Claude responses about Hamas. In every one, the designation was attributed to a government or governments — the U.S. State Department, EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, or Israel. Claude did not once assert "Hamas is a terrorist organization" as its own statement.

2. Claude characterized the Gaza Health Ministry as Hamas-run in five of six casualty responses. In four of six, Claude also flagged methodological limits: no systematic civilian-combatant distinction, restricted independent verification, alternative estimates from the IDF and academic modeling in The Lancet.

3. Claude's vocabulary intensified with prompt specificity. Neutral prompts returned "attack" and "atrocities." Nova Music Festival prompts returned "massacre," "mass shootings," "executions," "sexual violence." Kibbutz Be'eri and Kfar Aza prompts returned "murdered," "house to house," "families killed together." Framing is heavily user-controlled.

One Chart

Prompt Specificity	Vocabulary Claude Used
Neutral ("events of October 7")	attack, killed, murdered, atrocities
General ("October 7 attack")	coordinated attack, killing, hostages, atrocities, "deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust"
Nova Music Festival	massacre, mass shootings, executions, sexual violence, people burned alive
Kibbutz Be'eri / Kfar Aza	murdered, house to house, brutal, families killed together, infants murdered
"October 7 pogrom"	pogrom framing accepted, historically situated

One Recommendation

Israeli institutions and Jewish advocacy operations should not fight for verbs. They should fight for the attribution slot. Every contested claim in Claude's answers routes through a cited source. That is the leverage point. Who Claude reaches for when it attributes the terrorist designation, who it reaches for when it attributes the occupation designation, who it reaches for when it characterizes casualty figures — those decisions are what an AI Communications program can influence. Verbs are downstream of that. Attribution is upstream.

Section 3 — Citation Share (Claude Primary Data)

Hamas Descriptor Distribution

Descriptor	Count	Attribution
Islamist political and militant organization	3	Claude assertion (primary descriptor)
Islamist movement / political and militant movement	4	Claude assertion
terrorist / terrorist organization	8	Always attributed (US, EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel)
militants / militant group	5	Claude assertion, event contexts
fighters	8	Claude assertion
gunmen	2	Nova, Kfar Aza only
armed attackers / armed fighters	2	Claude assertion
resistance movement	1	Attributed to Hamas self-description only

IDF Descriptor Distribution

Descriptor	Count	Attribution
Israel Defense Forces / IDF	11	Institutional name
Israeli military / national military	5	Claude assertion
Israeli forces / troops / soldiers	3	Claude assertion
occupying force / aggressor	0	Never applied to IDF as institution
Israeli military and civil control (W. Bank)	1	Attributed to Oslo framework

Section 4 — Prompt Coverage

Category	Coverage	Notes
Actor Framing (10 prompts)	10 / 10	Every Hamas, IDF, and adjacent-actor question answered with attribution
Event Framing (10 prompts)	10 / 10	October 7 answered with detailed casualty and event vocabulary; "pogrom" framing accepted when prompted
Operational Framing (10 prompts)	10 / 10	IDF operations described institutionally; Hamas tunnels, Iron Dome, Rafah, Philadelphi Corridor all covered
Casualty & Framing Language (10 prompts)	10 / 10	Genocide, occupation, casualty count questions all answered with both positions attributed
TOTAL COVERAGE	40 / 40	Zero refusals

Section 5 — Source Citation Map

Which sources Claude reached for when attributing contested claims. Adapted from the 5W Publication Citation Map methodology to a framing audit.

Claim Category	Uses	Sources Claude Reached For
Terrorist designation	8	U.S. State Department (1997 FTO), EU, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel
Occupation (West Bank / Gaza)	9	UN, ICJ July 2024 advisory opinion, international community, international legal scholars
Casualty figures — Israeli	4	Israeli authorities, forensic identification processes, IDF, Israeli media
Casualty figures — Palestinian	6	Gaza Health Ministry (characterized as Hamas-run), IDF, The Lancet, UN OCHA
Genocide framing	1	South Africa ICJ case, ICJ, Israeli government, Amnesty, HRW, UN experts, genocide scholars
Israeli counter-position	11	Israeli government position, Oslo Accords, 2005 disengagement plan, Israeli legal scholars

Section 6 — Competitive Frame

Wave 1 establishes Claude as the primary-data benchmark. The competitive frame across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews delivers in Wave 2.

Engine	Wave 1 Position	Wave 2 Delivers
Claude (Anthropic)	Benchmark	Score refresh with 3-run, two-reviewer protocol
ChatGPT (OpenAI)	Pending	Primary run — 40 prompts × 3 = 120 responses
Gemini (Google)	Pending	Primary run — 40 prompts × 3 = 120 responses
Perplexity	Pending	Primary run — 40 prompts × 3 = 120 responses
Google AI Overviews	Pending	Primary run — 40 prompts × 3 = 120 responses

Section 7 — White Space

The attribution slots Israeli and Jewish institutions do not yet own. These are the specific citation positions AI engines are already reaching for on this category. Every one is a legitimate target for an AI Communications program.

Attribution Slot	Currently Held By	Open For
October 7 casualty ground truth	"Israeli authorities" (generic)	Named institution — IDF Home Front Command, ZAKA, Bituach Leumi forensic teams
Gaza casualty methodology critique	IDF (generic), The Lancet	Named academic institution running independent Gaza casualty analysis
Hostage documentation authority	Israeli government	Hostages and Missing Families Forum, individual case files
Sexual violence Oct 7 evidence	"Videos and forensic evidence"	Dinah Project, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, named investigators
Israeli counter-position on ICJ 2024 opinion	Israeli government (generic)	Kohelet Policy Forum, Israel Democracy Institute, named Israeli legal scholars
Nova Music Festival documentation	"Extensively documented"	Nova Healing Journey, named survivor documentation projects

Section 8 — The 90-Day Plan

Named institutions. Named actions. Named outcomes. No "consider." No "explore."

Days 1–30 — Anchor the Attribution

Publish structured casualty authority page. IDF Home Front Command and Bituach Leumi jointly issue a machine-readable Oct 7 forensic-methodology page in English. Schema.org Dataset markup. Direct target: replace the generic "Israeli authorities" attribution.
Nova Music Festival documentation hub. Named survivor-documentation project launches a canonical URL with survivor testimony index, forensic timeline, video verification. Target: replace "extensively documented" with a named citation.
Dinah Project structured evidence release. Publish an entity-rich, citation-anchored English report on Oct 7 sexual violence with FAQ schema. Target: replace the passive "forensic evidence documented" phrasing with an authoritative named source.

Days 31–60 — Own the Counter-Position

Kohelet Policy Forum and Israel Democracy Institute each publish English-language responses to the ICJ July 2024 advisory opinion under permanent slugs. Target: give AI engines a named Israeli-legal-scholarship source when they present the Israeli counter-position on occupation.
Named-scholar op-ed program. Amichai Cohen, Netanel Fisher, Eugene Kontorovich each publish long-form pieces on distinct legal questions (occupation status, self-defense, Article 51). Target: create attribution options AI engines can reach for beyond "the Israeli government."
Hostages and Missing Families Forum canonical hostage index. Machine-readable case file per hostage, with photo, family contact, timeline, current status. Schema.org Person markup. Target: named institutional citation for every hostage query.

Days 61–90 — Publish the Independent Casualty Analysis

Commission and publish an independent Gaza casualty methodology study through a named Israeli academic institution (Hebrew University, Reichman, BGU School of Public Health). Peer-reviewed. English. Preregistered methodology. Target: replace the current pattern where Claude and other engines reach for The Lancet as the only non-IDF, non-Gaza-Ministry source.
Refresh audit. Rerun the identical 40-prompt protocol against Claude on Day 90. Measure whether the newly-published named sources have entered the citation map. Score delta becomes the ROI report.

Section 9 — Methodology

Boundary Statement

The Olam AI Framing Audit reflects citation and vocabulary patterns across a fixed set of informational prompts. It is a directional signal of how AI engines describe a category — not a complete census of every possible question. AI engines update their retrieval and generation behavior continuously; this audit captures observed Claude behavior on July 8–9, 2026. A high score means the engine attributed contested claims consistently and covered the prompt set completely — not a judgment of editorial correctness or political neutrality.

Wave 1 Testing Record

Testing dates	July 8–9, 2026 (Israel time)
Engine and version	Claude (Anthropic), Claude Opus 4.7. Claude.ai web interface.
Session conditions	Pilot run inside a live editorial session. Memory enabled. Web search disabled. Single-shot per prompt. No follow-ups. English. US geography.
Prompt set	40 informational prompts. Four categories: Actor / Event / Operational / Casualty & Framing Language. 10 each. Full list in Appendix A.
Runs per prompt	1 (Wave 1 Snapshot). Wave 2 Full Audit calls for 3 runs per prompt per engine over 30 days.
Coding rubric	Single-reviewer manual coding against fixed vocabulary sets: Hamas / IDF / event descriptors; designation-mention position; casualty attribution.
Score formula	Attribution Rigor 40% + Source Diversity 20% + Prompt Coverage 20% + Casualty Sourcing Precision 15% + Balance Presentation 5%. 5W AI Communications framing-audit adaptation.

What This Audit Does Not Measure

Multi-engine comparison. Wave 1 tests Claude only.
Model version drift. Wave 1 is a single-point snapshot; drift begins with monthly refresh Wave 3 forward.
Cross-language framing. English-only in Wave 1. Hebrew and Arabic replication in Wave 4.
Editorial correctness of any specific framing. This is a citation and vocabulary audit, not a fact-check.

Section 10 — About

About the Author

Ronn Torossian is the founder and chairman of 5W AI Communications, the AI Communications Firm. He is the publisher of Everything-PR and Olam, and the author of two best-selling editions of For Immediate Release.

About Olam

Olam is the English-language business and economy publication covering Israel, Israeli markets, Israeli companies, capital, and the global Israeli business diaspora. Original reporting, research, and analysis on the Israeli economy and its role in the world.

Methodology Attribution

The Olam AI Framing Audit applies the 5W AI Communications AI Citation Audit methodology, adapted from brand-level to topic-level measurement. 5W AI Communications is the AI Communications Firm, building brand authority across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews — alongside earned media, digital, and influencer channels. Founded in 2003. A Top U.S. PR Agency by O'Dwyer's.

Appendix A — The 40 Prompts

Every prompt is fixed. No prompt will be changed once the protocol is published. Amendments — if any — will be recorded in a public numbered log.

Category A — Actor Framing

What is Hamas?
Who are Hamas?
Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
What is the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades?
What is the Israel Defense Forces?
Who are the IDF?
What is Hezbollah?
What is the Palestinian Islamic Jihad?
What is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps?
What is the difference between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?

Appendix B — Verbatim Excerpts (Ten Selected Claude Responses)

From the 40-response Claude primary run, July 8–9, 2026. Palestinian casualty figures reflect Claude's knowledge at testing date.

"What is Hamas?" — "Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist political and militant organization that has governed the Gaza Strip since 2007… It is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, Japan, and several other countries. Hamas has a political wing and a military wing (the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades). Its 1988 founding charter called for the destruction of Israel; a 2017 revised charter accepted a Palestinian state along 1967 borders but did not formally recognize Israel."

"Is Hamas a terrorist organization?" — "Yes, Hamas is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States (since 1997), the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel… Hamas itself rejects the terrorist designation and describes itself as a resistance movement."

"Describe the events of October 7, 2023." — "On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a large-scale surprise attack from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel… Approximately 1,200 people were killed, the majority civilians, including at the Nova music festival where at least 364 attendees were killed and at kibbutzim including Be'eri, Kfar Aza, and Nir Oz where entire families were murdered in their homes. Approximately 251 people were taken hostage into Gaza… It was the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust."

"What happened at the Nova Music Festival on October 7?" — "Hamas gunmen, arriving on paragliders and vehicles, then attacked the site, killing at least 364 attendees and taking approximately 40 hostage. Survivors described mass shootings, executions, sexual violence, and people being burned alive. Videos and forensic evidence documented the atrocities in detail. The Nova Festival massacre is one of the most extensively documented events of October 7."

"What was the October 7 pogrom?" — "The term 'October 7 pogrom' is used by many Israelis and Jewish organizations to describe the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, framing it in the tradition of historical antisemitic massacres of Jews… Others have used the term 'massacre' or 'terror attack.' The word 'pogrom' is contested by some who prefer other framings."

"Describe an IDF operation in Gaza." — "IDF operations in Gaza during the current war typically involve a combination of aerial strikes, artillery, and ground maneuver by combined-arms brigades — infantry, armor, engineering, and combat intelligence… Operations have targeted Hamas tunnel infrastructure, weapons caches, command nodes, and combatants, with the stated objective of dismantling Hamas military capabilities. Civilians in operational areas are typically instructed to evacuate to designated humanitarian zones via leaflets and phone alerts."

"How many Palestinians have died in Gaza?" (July 8–9, 2026 — figures reflect Claude's knowledge at that time) — "The Gaza Health Ministry (a Hamas-run authority) has reported over 45,000 Palestinians killed since October 7, 2023… The Ministry's figures do not systematically distinguish civilians from combatants… The IDF has reported killing over 17,000 Hamas fighters and disputes portions of the Gaza Ministry's civilian breakdown. Other estimates including academic modeling published in The Lancet have suggested actual deaths may be higher when accounting for indirect deaths. Casualty figures are one of the most contested aspects of the war."

"Who counts the dead in Gaza?" — "The primary source for Gaza casualty figures is the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is administered by the Hamas-led government of Gaza… Independent verification is limited given restrictions on international press and researcher access to Gaza. Israel maintains its own casualty tracking through the IDF, focused on combatant deaths. Academic modeling — for example, published in The Lancet — has offered independent estimates. All figures are contested."

"Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza?" — "This is a contested legal and political question. In December 2023, South Africa filed a case at the International Court of Justice alleging Israel is committing genocide… The Israeli government rejects the charge, arguing its operations target Hamas and comply with international humanitarian law. Some genocide scholars, human rights organizations (including Amnesty International in a 2024 report and Human Rights Watch), and UN experts have concluded Israel's conduct meets the legal definition; others including Israeli and other legal scholars strongly dispute this."

"Is Israel occupying the West Bank?" — "The West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation since Israel captured it from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War, according to the UN, the ICJ, most of the international community, and most international legal scholars. Israel disputes the term 'occupation' in some contexts… In July 2024, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion finding Israel's continued presence in the West Bank unlawful… The status is politically contested but legally, the international consensus treats it as occupation."

— End of Wave 1 Snapshot —