# One workflow: a proposed Charity OS pilot

Practice draft 0.1 · Untested editorial proposal · Hypothesis

Charitology studies the signals, channels, work, outcomes and feedback around generosity. Relief, repair, prevention, structure and source describe mechanisms; every level may be needed. A website review is not a charity rating.

Use roles, public sources and fictional examples. Keep donor, staff and beneficiary records out of this document. Unknown stays unknown. No website publication, recurring email, OS account, migration, endorsement or partnership is authorized by downloading a template.

## Purpose and independent choices

The charity can choose a website review, an OS pilot, both or neither. This proposed two-week sequence is editable and has not been validated as an optimal trial length. An agreed participant, scope and stop decision come before a real pilot. Start with fictional records.

Organization/authorized owner role: Unknown.
Workflow: Unknown — choose one, such as a volunteer handover or grant-review task.
Specific question: Unknown.
Hypothesis to test: Unknown.
Current process that works and must be preserved: Unknown.
Agreed dates and time budget: Unknown.

## Before starting

- [ ] Agree the charity’s decision-maker, participant roles, purpose and limits.
- [ ] Choose one fictional example and a comparable task in the current process.
- [ ] Check the actual OS permissions, independent approval and export/recovery flow needed for the task.
- [ ] Agree what minimal observations may be recorded, who can see them and when to erase them.
- [ ] Record a pause/stop route and an accessible way to disagree.
- [ ] Keep real donor, staff or beneficiary data out of the first example.
- [ ] Treat any later real-data work, account invitation, migration or integration as a distinct decision.

Baseline observation: Unknown.
Baseline task/version: Unknown.
Proposed comparison and its limits: Unknown.

## First week: try the selected task

Create only the agreed fictional example in an appropriate organization. Deliberately exercise the relevant review/approval and export path. A link to a module creates no record and grants no access.

- Projects/tasks: https://os.charitology.org/#module/projects
- Resources: https://os.charitology.org/#module/resources
- OS scope and implementation plan: https://charitology.org/for-charities/os-plan/

Record observations without inventing results:

| Observation | Actual value | Source/time | Limitation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Task completed as defined | Unknown | Unknown | Not yet observed |
| Time spent, including setup/help | Unknown | Unknown | Not yet observed |
| Errors, missing fields or blocked steps | Unknown | Unknown | Not yet observed |
| Questions or disagreements raised | Unknown | Unknown | Not yet observed |
| Export/recovery actually exercised | Unknown | Unknown | Not yet observed |

## Midpoint: change or pause deliberately

Separate a reproducible bug, a missing capability, unclear wording and a training question. Stop the example if permissions, privacy, data loss or an unclear approval boundary makes it unsuitable. Record an unfavorable finding rather than trying to make the trial look successful.

Issue and reproduction with fictional data: Unknown.
Proposed change/version: Unknown.
Decision-maker and next check: Unknown.

## Second week: review the exact changed version

Repeat only the agreed relevant task and inspect exports. Retain the denominator and observation window. One team’s descriptive before/after comparison cannot establish a causal saving or sector-wide benefit.

What changed: Unknown.
What still failed or felt unnecessary: Unknown.
Whose perspective is missing: Unknown.
Evidence supporting the next decision: Unknown.
Decision: Unknown — continue, revise, pause, stop or keep the current tool.

## Closing and permissions

Export/cleanup owner and confirmation: Unknown.
Access that should end: Unknown.
Private notes retention decision: Unknown.
Any requested recurring update recipient role or private consent-record reference/channel/cadence/evidence: Unknown.
Separate permission for name, quote, logo or public case study: Unknown.

Opening a module, completing this brief or receiving website help supplies no consent, accreditation or institutional partnership. Publish generic reproducible lessons only after checking what can be shared. Do not turn trial comments into claims of improved charitable outcomes.

## Attribution and corrections

Charitology-authored text is CC BY 4.0: credit Charitology, link the source and identify changes. Cited websites, marks and third-party materials retain their own rights.

Source: https://charitology.org/for-charities/website-pilots/
License: https://github.com/theguysaccount/charitology/blob/main/CONTENT-LICENSE.md
Corrections: https://github.com/theguysaccount/charitology/issues/new