GiveWell's money moved calculation includes only donations it is confident it influenced.

Judge GiveWell's 2015-era money moved methodology as stated in its money moved reports, as of 2015. True: the documented methodology counts only donations GiveWell had a specific, stated basis for attributing to its influence (for example donations made through GiveWell, donors who said in surveys that GiveWell influenced them, or recommended-charity reports tied to GiveWell), and it excludes donations whose attribution is uncertain. GiveWell describing itself as 'conservative' is not enough; the inclusion rules themselves must show this. Mostly true: the rules are conservative overall, with one minor documented category counted on looser grounds (for example a small estimated or default-attributed component). Mixed: a substantial share of the counted total rests on assumptions that GiveWell influenced donations it could not confirm. Mostly false or false: the methodology routinely counts donations without evidence of GiveWell's influence (for example all donations to its top charities), as shown by the report itself or by a third-party analysis.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Microsoft Word - Metrics report 2013 v5.doc (GiveWell Metrics Report 2013 Annual Review) GiveWell Own record

   “It includes only donations that we can confidently attribute to our recommendations.”

2. E2 2016 Annual Review How much charitable giving did GiveWell influence? GiveWell Own record

   “Our understanding is that GiveWell's research is the sole input into these groups' recommendation of our top charities.”

E1, GiveWell's 2013 metrics report, says money moved includes only donations it can confidently attribute to its recommendations, but this is the subject's own description, which the criteria say is not enough on its own. E4, from 2016, shows at least one category counted in the headline total (donations via effective-giving groups) on an asserted basis rather than donor-level evidence, which points to looser attribution. Neither item documents the 2015-era inclusion rules themselves, and there is no independent analysis, so the evidence does not settle the claim under the criteria.