# Proposed eight-session university seminar

Version 0.1 · review: draft · untested editorial teaching proposal

These original, AI-assisted materials are for educator review and adaptation. The activities, timings and rubric have not been tested with learners. They supply no accreditation, academic credit, recognition or evidence of teaching effectiveness. Correct classroom arithmetic is not measured charitable impact.

Use paper and fictional examples. No donation, payment, account, public post or personal story is required. Do not ask learners to disclose finances, giving history, beliefs or experiences of receiving help. This pack does not rank named charities or judge people’s motives. It does not change the existing ten-unit course, stored progress or completion criteria.

## Proposed eight-session university seminar

Eight proposed 90-minute meetings cover all ten existing chapters. This adaptation is not an accredited course, approved module or institutional partnership. A university makes its own teaching and assessment decisions.

Reusable 90-minute structure: 10 minutes retrieval and questions; 15 guided reading; 20 individual or pair work; 20 discussion; 15 revision; 10 exit reflection. An educator can redistribute time for access needs.

### 1. Map the system

Reading: [1. What charitology is](https://charitology.org/record/principles/01-what-charitology-is/) and [2. The charity system](https://charitology.org/record/principles/02-the-charity-system/).

Exercise: Map Riverbend through givers, signals, channels, work and outcomes. Mark unknown stages and a missing feedback link. Separate a proposed systems claim from a recorded fact.

Output: An annotated causal map and a testable hypothesis.

### 2. Describe where work acts

Reading: [3. Depth: from relief to source](https://charitology.org/record/principles/03-depth-from-relief-to-source/).

Exercise: Describe five fictional activities at different depths. Defend a boundary case and explain why several levels may be needed together. Treat the six-source framework as a hypothesis.

Output: Activity-level descriptions, an uncertainty note and a challenge to one proposed causal link.

### 3. Evidence and the missing comparison

Reading: [4. Evidence and its grades](https://charitology.org/record/principles/04-evidence-and-its-grades/) and [5. Counterfactuals and neglect](https://charitology.org/record/principles/05-counterfactuals-and-neglect/).

Exercise: Use cards A and B. Explain what a fair comparison requires. Add a fictional alternative funder and trace how its response could change a gift’s effect. Explain why neglect alone does not establish a tractable opportunity.

Output: A claim table separating recorded values, assumptions and unknowns, plus a proposed design and its limits.

### 4. Compare without hiding values

Reading: [6. Comparing the incomparable](https://charitology.org/record/principles/06-comparing-the-incomparable/).

Exercise: Consider workshops, immediate help and accessible information. Represent two moral lenses fairly. Identify an empirical question and a value disagreement; no single score is required.

Output: Two defensible recommendations with assumptions and an unresolved disagreement.

### 5. Time and durability

Reading: [7. Time](https://charitology.org/record/principles/07-time/).

Exercise: Draw when a fictional benefit begins and might stop. Separate uncertainty about occurrence from the moral weight assigned to later benefits. Label any discount rate as an assumption and compare alternatives.

Output: A timeline, an explicit timing assumption and a sensitivity note; no universal rate.

### 6. Voice and decision authority

Reading: [8. Feedback and voice](https://charitology.org/record/principles/08-feedback-and-voice/).

Exercise: Design who can disagree, who responds, what can change and how a response returns. Compare consultation with shared authority. Use no real personal data.

Output: A decision-rights diagram and an accessible feedback plan.

### 7. Failure, forecasts and revision

Reading: [9. Failure and learning](https://charitology.org/record/principles/09-failure-and-learning/).

Exercise: Write a measure, comparison, review date and revision rule before opening an invented results card. Report an inconclusive result or possible harm. Explain why one forecast score cannot establish calibration.

Output: A prereview rule and a short report retaining uncertainty and an unfavorable result.

### 8. Practice and peer challenge

Reading: [10. Becoming a charitologist](https://charitology.org/record/principles/10-becoming-a-charitologist/).

Exercise: Present a fictional decision brief using the checklist. A peer identifies the weakest link, an alternative explanation and a missing voice. Revise and record what changed.

Output: A capstone, peer questions and a revision note; no donation or public publication.

### Sample reading and exercise for session 3

Read chapter 4’s sections on intervention grades and rigor, then chapter 5’s counterfactual sections. Prepare: “The case records…”, “My comparison assumes…” and “I would need…”. Use Riverbend rather than a named charity. Ask whether the check measures something worth knowing, what could make the comparison unfair and whether another funder’s response changes the question.

System-claim labels—established, documented, debated and hypothesis—differ from intervention grades—strong, moderate, mixed, weak and unknown. The fictional table has no external evidentiary standing and should not receive a real intervention grade.

## Fictional capstone brief

Use a short brief of up to two pages, a diagram with an explanation or an equivalent oral presentation. For the beginner club meeting, use the shorter one-page version. Include:

1. A fictional choice and plausible alternative, intended outcome and time period.
2. A causal chain, weakest link, cash costs and missing resource costs.
3. Recorded fictional values, counterfactual assumptions and unknowns.
4. Two fairly represented moral lenses and a disagreement that survives calculation.
5. Missing voices, proposed decision authority and a route for feedback to return.
6. A measure, comparison, review date and revision rule, including how to report inconclusive results and harms.
7. A peer challenge and revision note, with reasons for any challenge not adopted.

Use supplied fictional material unless an educator has prepared and checked another case. Do not interpret worksheet completion, meeting attendance or this rubric as an automatic completion event in the existing course.

## Proposed reasoning rubric

Use these five criteria for feedback, with or without points. Each has four levels, 0–3; the optional maximum is 15. A classroom rubric does not award a Charitology credential or establish professional competence.

| Criterion | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Causal clarity | 0: No usable chain. | 1: Some stages, but output and outcome are confused. | 2: Distinguishes stages, output and outcome. | 3: Also identifies a weak link and a plausible alternative explanation. |
| Quantitative care | 0: No interpretable calculation. | 1: A calculation or its units are unclear. | 2: Arithmetic, units and denominators are correct. | 3: Also distinguishes cash and full costs, proxy limits and a zero denominator. |
| Evidence and counterfactuals | 0: Treats a result as proof. | 1: Notices uncertainty but leaves the comparison implicit. | 2: Separates observations, assumptions and unknowns. | 3: Also explains a credible comparison and its remaining limits. |
| Moral reasoning and voice | 0: Gives a verdict without reasons. | 1: Names a lens or stakeholder without explaining it. | 2: Fairly represents two lenses and a missing voice. | 3: Also identifies unresolved disagreement and explicit decision authority. |
| Learning and revision | 0: No follow-up. | 1: A vague intention to learn. | 2: Defines a review and revision step. | 3: Also retains unfavorable or inconclusive results and documents a response to criticism. |

Do not reward selecting a particular cause, agreeing with the facilitator, choosing a higher depth, adopting a prescribed moral lens, donating, revealing personal experience or publishing publicly. Offer equivalent written, diagrammatic and spoken formats. Assess reasoning separately from presentation polish.

## Working definitions

- **Input:** A resource used, such as cash or staff time.
- **Activity:** Something the project does, such as running a workshop.
- **Output:** A count of delivered work, such as workshops held or people attending.
- **Outcome:** A change in a specified condition or ability. A check result is closer to the activity than an outcome such as being able to make a real journey.
- **Counterfactual:** What would have happened to the same people, over the same period, without the program or decision being considered. It is not directly observed for those people.
- **Impact claim:** A claim about the difference made compared with that counterfactual. An observed outcome alone does not establish it.
- **Proxy:** A measured stand-in for something we care about. Passing a timetable check is not the same as successfully making a journey.
- **Percentage point:** The difference between two percentages: 70% minus 40% is 30 percentage points.
- **Moral lens:** A way of asking what matters and why. The project uses editorial sketches of welfare, rights, justice, care, faith and tradition, future generations, all life and flourishing. These are prompts, not complete accounts of every tradition.
- **Depth:** A description of where an activity aims to act: relief, repair, prevention, structure or source. It is not a grade. A larger number does not mean better or more effective; every level may be needed.
- **Six-source hypothesis:** Story, coordination, vision, attention, status and gatekeepers are proposed sources adopted from Humanity’s Checklist. Their explanatory and practical reach remains a hypothesis, not an established causal map.

## Fictional case: The Riverbend journey-planning project

All details are fictional. Riverbend is an invented town. A community project wants adults who choose to attend to find usable journey information. Its workshops aim to help people plan future journeys. It has not measured whether people reach appointments, find work or experience better wellbeing.

| Recorded item | Fictional record |
| --- | --- |
| Recorded cash spent | $600, including space, printed materials and facilitation |
| Workshops held | 6 |
| People at each workshop | 5 |
| Unique attendees | 30; each attended exactly one workshop |
| People completing both checks | The same 30 attendees |
| Passed the check before the workshop | 12 of 30 |
| Passed the check one week afterward | 21 of 30 |

### Limits of the fictional record

- Unpaid preparation time was not recorded. The $600 is recorded cash spending, not the full economic cost.
- There is no comparison group. A before/after change does not establish how much the workshops caused.
- The check uses a printed fictional timetable. Its accuracy as a measure of practical journey-planning ability has not been established.
- No actual journeys, employment or wellbeing outcomes were measured. Classroom numeracy is not measured charitable impact.
- Invitations were available only in small print. Organizers do not know who wanted to attend but could not access the invitation or session. The figures describe the participating group, not everyone in Riverbend.
- No personal journeys or private difficulties are needed for the exercise. A particular gift’s effect is not identified; other funders and other actors’ responses have not been modeled.

### Card A: an assumption, not evidence

Suppose 18 of these same 30 people would have passed the later check without the workshops, perhaps through other practice or information. This is an imagined alternative, not an observed comparison group. Calculate what follows only if the assumption were true.

### Card B: an assumption, not evidence

Suppose 21 of these same 30 people would have passed the later check without the workshops. This is another imagined alternative, not an observed comparison group. The case gives no basis for choosing A or B as correct.

Neither card establishes what a donor’s gift caused. Do not choose an assumption because its answer looks useful.

## Depth describes; it does not grade

Apply a description to an activity and explain its proposed causal chain. A larger number does not mean better, more effective or more deserving. Every level may be needed. All examples below are fictional.

| Level | Name | Question | Example |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Relief | Does it meet a need now? | Help someone plan a journey they must make today. |
| 1 | Repair | Does it restore something lost? | Help restore route-planning skills after a disruption. |
| 2 | Prevention | Does it aim to stop a future harm for these people? | Teach route planning to try to prevent future missed journeys. |
| 3 | Structure | Does it change a rule or institution producing a barrier? | Change a transport authority’s timetable-access policy. |
| 4 | Source | Does it address something feeding several kinds of problem? | Try to change whose knowledge institutions respect across transport, education and public services. That proposed connection needs evidence. |

Charitology adopts the proposed sources story, coordination, vision, attention, status and gatekeepers from [Humanity’s Checklist](https://humanityschecklist.org/). They prompt questions about shared narratives, working together, imaginable futures, what gets noticed, what gets admired and who gets to participate or build. Their explanatory and practical reach remains a hypothesis. Naming a source does not establish that an activity changes it.

## Make moral disagreement fair

The project uses editorial sketches of welfare, rights, justice, care, faith and tradition, future generations, all life and flourishing. They are prompts rather than complete descriptions of traditions. Use assigned roles instead of asking learners to disclose beliefs or speak for a group.

A welfare role might ask what additional practical benefit the work creates compared with an alternative use of resources. A rights/justice role might ask who cannot access small-print invitations and who has authority to change that barrier. A check score can inform this disagreement without settling duties, fair access or authority. More than one next step can be well reasoned.

## Access and local arrangements

Propose a reading group, class or extracurricular activity through the institution’s own process. Using this pack does not register a chapter or establish university, school or Charitology recognition.

Confirm physical and digital access, language, materials, quiet participation and a private route to request an adjustment. Essential figures and readings should be available on paper. Do not require a smartphone, public profile, Values Compass result, account or disclosure of a diagnosis. For a school group, an educator sets age-appropriate supervision and follows the institution’s existing rules.

Learners can pass on speaking, use assigned perspectives and keep their work. If a correction is shared publicly, make it optional, sanitized and subject to the normal editorial process and appropriate permission. Do not collect private learner contact details for this kit.

## Optional fictional Charity OS demonstration

The complete activity works on paper. An educator may instead show paper record shapes or an already-authorized fictional demonstration workspace. Do not ask learners to create accounts or enter real student, participant or donor data. This material creates no records, invitations, payments or messages.

- Projects and tasks: manually describe “Review the Riverbend check,” an owner role, completion condition and review date. Completing a task does not show that a program worked.
- Evidence and outcomes: mark 12/30 before and 21/30 later as fictional observations. A stored observation is not a causal conclusion or independently approved finding.
- Evaluation and learning: retain the comparison question, proposed method and unresolved counterfactual. A report or approval does not manufacture evidence or settle values.

Use the ordinary permissions of the existing demonstration setup; no automatic import is implied. Continue on paper if it is unavailable. Service scope: https://charitology.org/for-charities/os-plan/

## Attribution and reuse

Credit: [Charitology (charitology.org)](https://charitology.org/). Original editorial content and authored data are [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You may share and adapt them with attribution and a note of changes. Cited sources retain their own rights.

Teaching hub: https://charitology.org/learn/
Existing ten-unit course: https://charitology.org/programs/principles-course/
Textbook: https://charitology.org/record/principles/

The chapter links are reading routes. This pack does not claim an independent review of every chapter’s external citations. Educators should read the selected chapter and check cited originals before teaching its empirical examples.