Use the operational planning software
Work through proposals, evidence, conflicts and conditional allocations in the fund desk. Keep the nonpayment authorization ledger separate from cash, receipts and disbursements. Export the complete internal kit or a selected-field transparency draft for review. Proposal asks, allocation plans and ledger entries are separate stages and are not added together.
The workspace includes separate institutional-readiness records. Those records track what responsible people still need to establish; they do not grant approval or verify a legal, funded program. The longer-term charter below remains an institutional proposal.
Save each form, inspect the generated kit and export a backup. Your records stay in this browser. Imports are validated, destructive changes offer undo and newer work from another tab is protected. Fictional examples contain no real commitments, participants or results.
What it is
The Charitology Fund would let anyone give to the field’s current best estimate of where money does the most good, without doing the research themselves. When the estimate changed, the grants would change with it.
How it works
“Best” depends on values, so the estimate would be built in the open from Charitology’s research. The fund would split money across the moral frameworks the field tracks, using a published method such as the credence-weighted one in the Portfolio Builder. It would also set a deliberate mix across the depth scale, so relief for today and work on sources are both funded on purpose. Within each part, it would give to the strongest opportunities the research can find, including gaps on the Gap Map.
Every grant, weight and change would be published with its reasons. An independent board, separate from the people who write the research, would approve allocations, and every conflict of interest would be disclosed.
First, though, the fund needs three things: a legal entity, a fiscal sponsor and independent governance. A fiscal sponsor is an existing public charity that receives gifts for a project and manages them under a formal agreement. Until all three are in place, the fund accepts nothing.
Why it matters for the system
Three conditions pull money away from the best estimate, and one fund could push back on all three. The Story Bias sends gifts toward the most visible need, while the fund would allocate by evidence and scale. The Symptom Trap favors relief that is easy to see, while the fund would set its depth mix on purpose. The Single Lens hides whole categories of good, while the fund would give across frameworks with its weights in plain view.
Risks and limits
A single fund that many people follow could become a new gatekeeper, one of the problems Charitology exists to study. Its estimate will sometimes be wrong. The charter would cap the share any one grantee can receive and publish dissent from reviewers. And because a fund’s grants are rankings in practice, the allocation method would have to pass public red-team review first: Charitology publishes no rankings of named organizations until its method has done so.
What success looks like
Within five years of opening, the fund’s allocation is a public reference point, and anyone can check its record of changing grants when the evidence changed.
Fund governance and grant desk
Build a proposal pipeline, record conflicts and conditional allocations, and prepare a transparency draft. Amounts are planning entries, not cash or measured impact.
No legal fund exists through this workspace. It accepts, holds and transfers no money, verifies no eligibility and publishes no charity rankings. Every authorization is a local planning record.
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:
- Governance and legal home. Identify an accountable host and seek appropriate independent review before any external operation.
- People, resources and permission. Confirm real roles, resources, consent and any required agreements; this software creates none.
- Conflicts, safeguards and correction. Set independent review, recusal, access, retention and challenge procedures before launch.
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.
Review authority, sources and privacy before sharing. Internal conflict records are excluded; no publication occurs.
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 Charitology Fund 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.