Score 0-20: Statement openly promotes increasing EU funding for agriculture. OR uses emotional / critical language about farming hardships to push for more funding. Markers: explicit calls for larger CAP envelope, higher CAP / Pillar 1 / Pillar 2 amounts, additional crisis support, higher reserve amounts, external convergence (raising direct payment levels in poorer member states), real-terms increases, opposition to budget cuts, calls for 'adequate' / 'sufficient' funding when status quo is described as inadequate, urgency about farmers' incomes.
Score 21-40: Subtly / discretely / indirectly favours increasing EU funding without emotional rhetoric. Markers: defending current CAP envelope, calls to 'preserve' or 'maintain' CAP funding, mentions of inflation eroding real-terms support, support for separate CAP fund (against integration), institutional defense of CAP's role.
Score 41-60: Genuinely balanced. Speaker explicitly acknowledges both the case for more funding AND the case for less, advocates no specific direction-tilting measure, and is not deferring. RARE on a real polarising trade-off (target <5%). In this AGRIFISH Council corpus an exact-50 is overwhelmingly likely to be scorer fallback for an actually-pro-funding statement that should be in 21-40 or 0-20. Watch for: (a) procedural / agenda-management statements wrongly scored 50 (should be WRONG_TOPIC/REMOVE); (b) statements that ONLY engage the topic via simplification or administrative-burden framing with no funding-level position (should be WRONG_TOPIC).
Score 61-80: Subtly / discretely / indirectly favours decreasing EU funding without emotional rhetoric. Markers: calls for 'modernization' / 'better targeting' / 'efficiency improvements' framed as reducing spending; support for integration of CAP into a single big fund (in MFF negotiations typically threatens CAP visibility/amounts); calls to cap large beneficiaries strictly; stronger conditionality reducing payouts; arguments that CAP is too generous.
Score 81-100: Openly promotes decreasing EU funding for agriculture, or uses urgent / critical fiscal language to push for cuts. Markers: explicit calls to cut CAP budget, statements that CAP is overfunded, demands to slash subsidies, framing CAP as fiscal burden.