GiveWell intends to discuss, for each of its self-review questions, its progress since November 2008, where it stands today relative to success, and what it can do to improve.

True: GiveWell's 2009 self-evaluation series, published after 7 January 2010, discusses all three elements for each self-review question: progress since November 2008, current standing relative to success, and how to improve. Mostly true: all questions are covered and only a minor element is missing for one question. Mostly false: some questions were covered, or questions were covered without the three elements. False: a later post or record shows the self-review series was abandoned, or that the published series omits these discussions. Partial coverage counts as mostly false at most.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Self-evaluation: GiveWell as a donor resource - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog (GiveWell) · 9 February 2010 Own record

   “This post answers the first section of questions we posed to ourselves in January about the state of GiveWell as a donor resource. For each question, we discuss”

2. E2 Self-evaluation: GiveWell as a project - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell Blog (GiveWell) · 11 February 2010 Own record

   “This post answers the “additional questions for stakeholders” that we posed to ourselves in January about the state of GiveWell. For each question, we discuss”

3. E3 Our Progress to Date GiveWell · March 2021 Own record

   “We originally published this review and plan on our blog over five posts:”

4. E4 Our Progress to Date GiveWell · March 2021 Own record

   “We discussed the state of GiveWell in terms of research quality and usefulness. We felt that our quality was strong, our credibility was reasonable but with room for improvement, and that our biggest problem was that we hadn't identified enough truly top-notch charities to absorb a significant amount of funding.”

The two self-evaluation posts published in February 2010 [E1, E2] each state that for every question they discuss progress since 11/2008, current standing and how to improve. Their sections for the donor-resource questions (three) and the stakeholder questions (five) each carry those three headings. GiveWell's later progress page [E3] confirms the 2009 review was published as a blog series, which shows it was not abandoned. These are the subject's own posts, but they are the published output itself, and the evidence does not show any self-review question left out.