Observe the right channels
Keep the Radar source set focused on channels whose publication cadence matters to the assignment.
Feature · Radar activity
Detect Telegram activity spikes against a source baseline
Detect unusual publishing bursts in selected Telegram channels by comparing current activity with each source's own history.
Direct answer. Radar detects an activity spike when a selected Telegram channel publishes unusually often relative to its own recent history. The signal includes the current window, usual activity, confidence context, and evidence posts for review.
Research fit
Who this workflow is for
Monitoring teams that need to notice changes in source behavior before reading every new message manually.
Compare with self-history
Interpret a burst against that source's baseline rather than against an unrelated channel.
Review the posts
Open the evidence and determine whether the burst concerns the monitored topic or ordinary noise.
Practical module
Activity-spike triage fields
A posting burst needs context before it becomes a research lead.
Current activityPosts observed in the chosen 24-hour, 3-day, or 7-day window.
Usual activityThe comparison baseline for the same source and the confidence available.
Topic relevanceWhether the evidence posts concern the assignment or an unrelated publishing burst.
Activity-spike triage note
Record what changed, how it compares with the source baseline, and whether the evidence deserves escalation.
For each activity spike in [Radar window], report the selected source, current post count, usual activity, confidence, and evidence posts. Then classify the burst as relevant, unrelated, or unresolved for [research topic] without inferring motive.
Inputs to set
- Window
- The Radar period used for all sources in this triage pass.
- Topic
- The monitored event, entity, or narrative used to judge relevance.
- Escalation
- The evidence threshold for assigning a human reviewer.
Expected output
- Current-versus-usual activity comparison
- Relevant evidence posts and short rationale
- Triage decision with reviewer and timestamp
Review before use
- Use each source's own baseline
- Inspect the posts, not only the count
- Record insufficient history as uncertainty
Read the complete resource
# Activity-spike triage note Record what changed, how it compares with the source baseline, and whether the evidence deserves escalation. ## Query For each activity spike in [Radar window], report the selected source, current post count, usual activity, confidence, and evidence posts. Then classify the burst as relevant, unrelated, or unresolved for [research topic] without inferring motive. ## Inputs - **Window:** The Radar period used for all sources in this triage pass. - **Topic:** The monitored event, entity, or narrative used to judge relevance. - **Escalation:** The evidence threshold for assigning a human reviewer. ## Expected output - Current-versus-usual activity comparison - Relevant evidence posts and short rationale - Triage decision with reviewer and timestamp ## Review checks - [ ] Use each source's own baseline - [ ] Inspect the posts, not only the count - [ ] Record insufficient history as uncertainty
Boundaries
What this does not establish
- More posts do not automatically mean greater importance or coordination
- A new or sparse source can have limited historical context
- Radar does not establish why a channel changed its behavior
Founding research pilot
Apply with an activity-monitoring workflow
Bring one recurring research job and a small set of public sources. We will assess fit personally before offering a pilot.
Apply for a 14-day research pilot
30 founding researcher places · rolling admission · personal reply within 2 business days
Continue researching
Related guides
Publication notes. This page was reviewed before publication and is scheduled for review by 2026-12-19. Facts used: product-radar-signals · product-radar-windows · product-radar-activity