GiveWell's reviews of other organizations tend to focus on the end product and stay agnostic on those organizations' progress and how they can improve.

Judged as of 2010-01-07. True: GiveWell's reviews of other organizations up to that date generally assessed outputs or end results and did not evaluate those organizations' progress or suggest improvements. Mostly true: this held for most reviews with some exceptions. Mixed: the reviews were split. Mostly false: most reviews did assess progress or recommend improvements. False: the reviews routinely focused on progress and improvement.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Charities Worthy of Special Recognition GiveWell · 10 May 2010 Own record

   “we recognize AMREF for its commitment to monitoring and evaluation. However, the details in this report did not meet our criteria for proven impact, and we therefore did not proceed further with AMREF.”

2. E2 Celebrated charities that we don't recommend - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 28 December 2009 Own record

   “In most cases our assessment is based on significant back-and-forth with the charities themselves, though in some cases we are going off their website.”

3. E3 Overview of Criteria and Process Used for Identifying International Charities GiveWell · 1 January 2009 Own record

   “Intervention reports. These are reviews of specific programs (e.g., bednets to prevent malaria, drugs to treat HIV/AIDS) in which we describe the program, review its evidence of effectiveness, and present what we know about its cost-effectiveness.”

4. E4 Celebrated charities that we don't recommend - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 28 December 2009 Own record

   “Normally, we focus on identifying outstanding charities, and minimize the time spent on opaque or otherwise lackluster ones.”

All evidence comes from GiveWell itself, and none directly shows whether its reviews of other organizations up to 2010-01-07 assessed their progress or suggested improvements. E3 describes intervention reports that review evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and E4 says GiveWell spends little time on lackluster charities; both fit an end-product focus but do not confirm it. E2 notes extended back-and-forth with charities, which does not by itself show that GiveWell evaluated their progress or recommended improvements. E1 postdates the judgment date and addresses impact evidence rather than improvement advice, so the evidence does not settle the claim.