Most strong contest entries will focus on one of the six listed programs.

Judge after the Change Our Mind contest results are announced (2022). True: more than half of the winning, runner-up and honourable-mention entries (GiveWell's 'strong' entries) focus on one of the six listed programs. Mostly true: about half or slightly more, with ambiguity about whether some entries count as focusing on a listed program. Mixed: roughly 40–50%. Mostly false: a clear minority. False: few or none of the strong entries focus on the listed programs.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 The winners of the Change Our Mind Contest—and some reflections - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 15 December 2022 Own record

   “Dr. Samantha Field and Dr. Yannish Naik for “A critique of GiveWell’s CEA model for Conditional Cash Transfers for vaccination in Nigeria (New Incentives)“”

2. E2 The winners of the Change Our Mind Contest—and some reflections - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 15 December 2022 Own record

   “Isobel Phillips for “Improving GiveWell’s modelling of insecticide resistance may change their cost per life saved for AMF by up to 20%“”

3. E3 The winners of the Change Our Mind Contest—and some reflections - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 15 December 2022 Own record

   “The authors suggest several changes to GiveWell’s analysis of water chlorination programs, which overall make Dispensers for Safe Water’s program appear less cost-effective.”

4. E4 The winners of the Change Our Mind Contest—and some reflections - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog · 15 December 2022 Own record

   “We received at least two entries on each of the six cost-effectiveness analyses we pointed people toward, plus some entries on other programs, and many cross-cutting entries on issues like uncertainty, the discount rate for future benefits, our moral weights, and more.”

The evidence identifies some strong entries that focus on listed or top-charity programs: New Incentives (E1), AMF (E2) and possibly water chlorination (E3), though the excerpt does not confirm that chlorination is among the six. E4 says there were many cross-cutting entries on uncertainty, discount rates and moral weights, but it does not say how many of the winning, runner-up and honourable-mention entries were cross-cutting. Without the full list of strong entries and their topics, the share focusing on the six programs cannot be worked out under the criteria.