Prepare a donor discussion
Open the donor workspace to record values and constraints, unresolved intake questions, alternative giving scenarios, evidence notes and decision checkpoints. Load a clearly fictional example or start from your own project alias. Save, edit and export a discussion packet in this browser. Scenarios do not produce charity scores or a recommended allocation.
Keep private financial information and personal details out. Nothing is sent to an advisor, submitted publicly or paid through the workspace. The service described below remains a charter for partners; the volunteer pilot in its first milestone has not been conducted by publishing this software.
What it is
Donor Advisory would sit down with a donor, a family or a foundation and work through a giving plan using the Charitology method. The advisor’s job would be to help donors see their own choices clearly: which moral frameworks they hold, where on the depth scale they want to act, how near or far they want to give and when the money should move. The donor decides.
How it works
Every engagement would follow a published protocol. It would start with values, using the Values Compass, and move to a draft allocation in the Portfolio Builder. It would then cover timing, including whether money held in a foundation or a donor-advised fund should move faster, and distance, with honest comparisons of what the same money could do at home and abroad.
Advisors would take no commissions and disclose every conflict of interest. Tax, legal and investment questions belong to licensed professionals, so the program would work alongside them rather than replace them. And until Charitology’s method passes public red-team review, advisors would not hand out rankings of named charities. They would point donors to public research instead.
Why it matters for the system
Three conditions meet in a single giving plan. Parked Money builds up because the system has no view on when money should move, so the default is whatever is easiest. An advisor would turn timing into a deliberate choice. The Single Lens can narrow a plan to one framework without the donor noticing, and the advisor would show the others. The Proximity Pull works partly through missing information, and the advisor would supply the comparison, so the donor can choose with eyes open whether to give near or far.
Risks and limits
Advice can steer people toward the advisor’s own views. The protocol would put the donor’s values first, record the reasons for each choice and ask donors afterward whether they felt steered. Until partners, funding and a proper legal and governance setup are in place, the program accepts no money.
What success looks like
Within five years, the protocol is public and in use, and donors who used it say their plans reflect their own values. A study has compared their giving with that of similar donors who didn’t use it.
Prepare a donor discussion
Work from values and constraints to alternative giving scenarios, evidence questions and a follow-up plan. Keep the donor’s choices and unresolved disagreements visible.
This is a local planning notebook, not an advisory engagement, charity recommendation or tax, legal, investment or estate advice. It moves no money and submits nothing. Use a project alias and public sources; omit names, account balances, contact details and private financial records.
Your work stays in this browser. No account or server submission. Save each form, then export a backup before sharing or changing devices. Sample records are fictional. Backups support up to 500 records (250 per collection) and 8 MB, including formatting; large projects must be split before that limit.
Opening the local record snapshot…
Software and institutional readiness are separate
This workspace is available now. These requirements are not established by using it:
- Qualified people and a defined engagement. A real service needs trained advisors, a legal home, clear responsibilities and appropriate qualified referrals for tax, legal, investment and estate questions.
- Independent funding and conflict rules. Publish fees, referral interests, commissions and other conflicts. Agree how advice remains independent before offering an engagement.
- Privacy, consent and challenge. Agree who may participate, what may be recorded, retention, access and how a donor can challenge advice without pressure.
- Protocol testing and public learning. The charter’s volunteer pilot, anonymized feedback and independent review remain work for actual partners. A completed notebook does not complete that pilot.
Track evidence and outside authorization in the readiness records below. No local status confers legal approval, funding, accreditation or independent review.
1. Set the scope and assumptions
2. Review the current picture
3. Prepare a usable draft
Preview the generated kit below. It includes the context, every saved record, calculations, working documents and unresolved review prompts. Exports include all records even while a filter is active.
Read generated draft
Use Backups and recovery above to restore native JSON, remove this saved key, undo a record change or retry a failed save. Unfinished fields have a separate recovery download.
After a failed save, Retry keeps that exact change. To replace it instead, review the context or an existing record form below. Before adding a new record in another form, resolve the failed save; keep unfinished-field copies first.
Connect your program work
Keep chosen copies of records from Donor Advisory and the other partner workspaces together. Explain how a plan, evidence note or decision connects to another record, then review that connection when a copy changes.
This private browser notebook records your own snapshots and explanations. It does not establish permission, independent review, causation or observed results. The original workspaces stay separate. Files and records are not sent anywhere.
The companion notebook is loading. The original workspace remains available above.