Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
76 63 88 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
Insufficient record: 1 prediction resolved, 5 needed for a score.
-
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
70 52 87
All types combined: 74 (likely 64 to 84, medium confidence), from 22 claims: 15 factual claims, 7 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
GiveWell's claims
“We hope to conduct in-depth reviews of one to two other charities (most likely Precision Agriculture for Development and/or Sanku, though possibly others) as well, but may have limited capacity to do so due to COVID-19-responsive work.”
GiveWell, unsigned blog post 28 May 2020 GiveWell's plans for 2020 (The GiveWell Blog)
GiveWell hopes to conduct in-depth reviews of one to two other charities in 2020, most likely Precision Agriculture for Development and/or Sanku, but may have limited capacity due to COVID-19 work.
Mostly false False in substance, right in a detail.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
True: during 2020 GiveWell conducted in-depth reviews of at least one and up to two charities other than New Incentives (Precision Agriculture for Development, Sanku or others), as shown by published review pages or dated reports. Mostly true: one or two such reviews were substantially carried out in 2020 though publication came in early 2021, with dated evidence that the work was done in 2020. Mostly false: only preliminary or shallow investigations were done in 2020, or in-depth reviews happened only after 2020. False: GiveWell's later updates state no such in-depth reviews were done in 2020 (e.g., deprioritised due to COVID-19 work). The hedging means a shortfall is not a broken promise, but the verdict reflects whether the reviews happened.
Evidence
- Precision Development - November 2020 Version GiveWell · November 2020 Own record
“We have not conducted an in-depth review of the information PAD collects from its users on engagement, knowledge, and reported behavior change.”
- Precision Development - November 2020 Version GiveWell · November 2020 Own record
“To date, our investigation process has consisted of:”
- Intervention Reports - March 2021 Version GiveWell · March 2021 Own record
“Precision Agriculture for Development (mobile-based agricultural advice) | Yes, but at a shallow level”
- Our recommendations for giving in 2020 - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell · 19 November 2020 Own record
“We spent several months in 2020 assessing potential giving opportunities that could mitigate the effects of COVID-19.”
Reasoning
GiveWell published a November 2020 page on Precision Agriculture for Development, but that page describes its investigation to date as limited to conversations and document review, and says some aspects had not been reviewed in depth (E1, E2). GiveWell's March 2021 intervention table classifies the PAD evidence review as done only at a shallow level (E3). GiveWell's November 2020 summary of its 2020 work notes months spent on COVID-19 work and does not name PAD or Sanku among completed research (E4). Under the criteria, this fits only preliminary or shallow investigation in 2020, though all of the evidence comes from GiveWell itself.
Cite this claim
GiveWell, “GiveWell hopes to conduct in-depth reviews of one to two other charities in 2020, most likely Precision Agriculture for Development and/or Sanku, but may have limited capacity due to COVID-19 work.” (said 28 May 2020). Verdict: mostly false. Reliability API, claim c_2c34a5cbd66e, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_2c34a5cbd66e
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for GiveWell? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.