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 make our analyses publicly available because transparency enables people to evaluate our work and conclusions.”
GiveWell, unsigned organisational page 6 April 2022 GiveWell's Change Our Mind Contest (GiveWell)
GiveWell makes its cost-effectiveness analyses publicly available.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
What would count as true or false
Judged as of 2022-04-06. True: GiveWell publicly posted its cost-effectiveness analyses, such as its CEA spreadsheets for top charities, on its website as of that date. Mostly true: most analyses were public but some notable ones were not. Mixed: only around half were public. Mostly false: only a few were public. False: the analyses were generally not publicly available.
Evidence
- GiveWell's Cost-Effectiveness Analyses GiveWell Own record
“Cost-effectiveness models for GiveWell's Top Charities can be accessed via the links below: - Malaria Consortium's Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention Program - Against Malaria Foundation - Helen Keller Intl's Vitamin A Supplementation Program - New Incentives”
- 2021 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Changelog GiveWell · 5 May 2021 Own record
“Our leverage and funging adjustments for AMF are calculated on a non-public spreadsheet. We have not made this spreadsheet publicly available because we have not received permission to publish country-specific cost estimates we received from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which our calculations rely on.”
- 2021 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Changelog GiveWell · 28 September 2021 Own record
“Link to the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) file: 2021 CEA — version 3”
- Process for Identifying Top Charities GiveWell · July 2025 Own record
“we publish the details of our analysis, spell out our major assumptions and allow readers to fill in their own.”
Reasoning
GiveWell's 2021 changelog links to a published CEA workbook (version 3, dated 28 September 2021), which shows its top-charity cost-effectiveness analyses were posted on its website before April 2022 [E3]. The same changelog states that the leverage and funging adjustments for the Against Malaria Foundation were calculated on a non-public spreadsheet because of third-party data restrictions, so at least one component was not public [E2]. E1 and E4 describe the practice of publication, but they reflect later page versions and come from the subject itself. All the evidence comes from GiveWell, but E3 is the published output itself; on that basis, most analyses were public with a notable exception.
Cite this claim
GiveWell, “GiveWell makes its cost-effectiveness analyses publicly available.” (said 6 April 2022). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_ee7179b0c845, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_ee7179b0c845
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.