{
  "name": "record",
  "description": "Every information base in the Record.",
  "license": "CC BY 4.0. Cite “Charitology (charitology.org)”.",
  "generated": "2026-10-26",
  "data": [
    {
      "id": "case-studies",
      "path": "/record/case-studies/",
      "title": "Historical Case Studies",
      "group": "Research archives",
      "order": 3,
      "summary": "A searchable archive of historical successes, failures and mixed results, with places, periods, lessons, source lists and reading dossiers.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "13 searchable cases with result, place and depth filters, full source lists and reading dossiers. This is a bounded draft collection, not a representative sample.",
      "conditions": [
        "short-horizon",
        "fragmentation"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Add a case with sources: copy any file in src/content/cases/.",
        "Add a lesson to an existing case."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/programs/history-of-charity/",
        "/record/failure-archive/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "History is the only laboratory where we can see how giving played out over decades. Each case records what happened, where it sat on the [depth scale](/method/#depth), and the lessons it carries for the system today.\n\n## Use this reference base\n\nSearch the full case text and sources, then filter by recorded result, place, depth or review status. Each card exposes the period, setting and lessons stated in its entry. Select cases to download a reading dossier for a workshop, literature review or program discussion.\n\n## Coverage and review\n\nResult labels describe particular cases rather than grading the organizations or people involved. A lesson from one setting needs a fresh argument before it is applied in another."
    },
    {
      "id": "cause-atlas",
      "path": "/record/cause-atlas/",
      "title": "Cause Atlas",
      "group": "Flagship references",
      "order": 4,
      "summary": "A map of the cause areas and the problems they touch, from symptoms on the surface to the six sources underneath.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "A working cause browser with linked intervention evidence. Worldwide funding is not estimated.",
      "conditions": [
        "symptom-trap",
        "single-lens",
        "story-bias"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Each cause area has sourced estimates of scale and current funding.",
      "help": [
        "Challenge a cause’s position on the five dimensions with a pull request to src/data/causes.json.",
        "Propose a missing cause area.",
        "Help the Cause Census add scale and neglect data with sources."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/programs/cause-census/",
        "/tools/values-compass/",
        "/record/gap-map/"
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "title": "Humanity’s Checklist",
          "url": "https://humanityschecklist.org/",
          "publisher": "Humanity’s Checklist",
          "year": 2026
        }
      ],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "The Atlas maps Charitology’s cause areas, links them to the sourced Intervention Database and makes the editorial dimensions and source hypotheses inspectable. It does not turn those dimensions into impact scores.\n\nThe source map below preserves the six proposed sources and eighteen problems in Humanity’s Checklist. Its links are hypotheses for investigation, not an established causal graph."
    },
    {
      "id": "charitology-100",
      "path": "/record/charitology-100/",
      "title": "The Charitology 100",
      "group": "Annual publications",
      "order": 2,
      "summary": "A working nomination and method-review lab for a proposed future list. No named ranking is approved or published.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "A working nomination and method-review lab. No named-charity ranking is approved or published.",
      "conditions": [
        "single-lens",
        "story-bias",
        "overhead-myth"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Draft method published and red-teamed in public.",
      "help": [
        "Red-team the draft criteria below in an issue labeled charitology-100.",
        "Propose how the list should handle frameworks that disagree."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/programs/red-team/",
        "/record/methodology/",
        "/record/charity-index/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "## The method lab is open\n\nBuild a complete nomination packet with an activity, mechanism, moral lenses, depth rationale, source evidence, additional-funding limits, affected-community agency, conflicts and the strongest objection. Save several packets locally, edit them, undo deletion and export or restore a validated backup.\n\n## The public rating gate\n\nA ranked list can steer attention and money. The website does not publish one before independent public red-team review. A complete packet is ready for discussion, not an approved recommendation. No browser checklist can stand in for that review.\n\n## Questions the review must settle\n\nEvery lens and depth level deserves a fair hearing. Evidence and uncertainty must remain visible. Reviewers must address additional funding, harms, conflicts, agency, appeals and correction procedures. They must also decide whether a ranked list is justified at all when values and outcome units differ."
    },
    {
      "id": "charity-index",
      "path": "/record/charity-index/",
      "title": "Global Charity Index",
      "group": "Flagship references",
      "order": 2,
      "summary": "A searchable working index with descriptive depth hypotheses, cause filters, public-registry links, source lists and research dossiers.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "16 transparent classification records with multi-filter browsing, registry links and research dossiers. Classifications remain draft hypotheses, not charity ratings.",
      "conditions": [
        "overhead-myth",
        "symptom-trap"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Five hundred organizations classified by depth, each classification checked by two contributors.",
      "help": [
        "Add an organization with a pull request to src/content/charities/, citing its own description of its work.",
        "Challenge a depth classification in an issue labeled red-team.",
        "Help connect the Index to the open registries listed below."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/tools/charity-lookup/",
        "/record/interventions/",
        "/method/"
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "title": "Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract",
          "url": "https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf",
          "publisher": "Internal Revenue Service"
        }
      ],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "The IRS publishes a master file of U.S. tax-exempt organizations. The Index links to existing public registries for filings and adds an editorial hypothesis about *where the work sits on the chain from symptom to source*. It starts with a small set of organizations; it is not a worldwide census.\n\n## What it is not\n\nThe Index is not a rating. Depth describes where work acts, not how good it is. Every level is needed, and a relief charity at depth 0 may be the best use of a given dollar. Each classification is labeled as a hypothesis, cites the organization’s own description of its work, and can be challenged in public.\n\n## How it’s built\n\nEach entry is a small file in `src/content/charities/` with the organization’s name, website, a one-line description of what it does, a depth classification, its cause areas and the interventions it delivers. Finances, filings and funders stay in the registries that already publish them, linked from every entry.\n\n## Use this reference base\n\nFilter by cause area, depth hypothesis or review status. Inspect the cited description of an organization’s work, follow its website or public-registry links, and keep a source-linked reading dossier for your own research. Registry searches may return several organizations with similar names; check the identity before interpreting a filing.\n\n## Coverage and review\n\nThis is a small working index, not a worldwide census. Selecting an organization adds it to a research reading list. It does not recommend a donation, compare its worth with another organization or validate a depth hypothesis."
    },
    {
      "id": "country-profiles",
      "path": "/record/country-profiles/",
      "title": "Country Profiles",
      "group": "Research archives",
      "order": 5,
      "summary": "Dated national indicators, country comparisons and a research desk for locally accountable profiles.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "217 country/economy data profiles and a local research desk. Locally coauthored narrative profiles remain a separate milestone.",
      "conditions": [
        "proximity-pull",
        "missing-voice"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Ten profiles, each co-written with someone who lives there.",
      "help": [
        "Draft a profile from open data using the template below.",
        "Partner with local researchers so profiles are written from inside each country."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/record/open-datasets/",
        "/record/cause-atlas/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "## Statistical profiles and local authorship\n\nThe data desk publishes dated World Bank observations for 217 countries and economies. It offers comparable units, exact observation years, original-producer metadata, source links and exportable research briefs. These statistical pages are not locally coauthored narratives and do not claim to identify a country’s priorities.\n\nA full narrative profile still needs people living there to shape the question, challenge the interpretation and identify missing voices. The private worksheet prepares that work without inventing it.\n\n## A reproducible snapshot\n\nFive indicators cover population, life expectancy, under-five mortality, electricity access and basic drinking water. Each country uses the latest non-empty observation within 2020–2025. Missing values remain unknown. No composite need score, charity ranking or global funding estimate is inferred."
    },
    {
      "id": "disagreements",
      "path": "/record/disagreements/",
      "title": "Disagreement Register",
      "group": "Research archives",
      "order": 4,
      "summary": "A searchable register of positions, cruxes and unresolved questions, with source lists, review labels and downloadable debate dossiers.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "8 searchable disagreements with positions, cruxes, sources and discussion dossiers. The collection remains editorial and open to correction.",
      "conditions": [
        "single-lens"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Add a live disagreement with both sides stated at full strength.",
        "Propose a crux, meaning a fact that would change someone’s mind."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/programs/moral-frameworks-program/",
        "/programs/red-team/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "This register makes disagreements explicit: each entry states the positions it covers, names the *cruxes* that could change minds, and says whether the question is open, narrowing or settled. Readers can add a missing position or challenge the evidence in public.\n\n## Use this reference base\n\nSearch the full debate text and references. Filter by debate status, linked system condition or editorial review. Open the recorded fields to read the positions and cruxes together, then select entries to download a source-linked debate dossier.\n\n## Coverage and review\n\nThe register does not count positions as votes or decide a debate by how many sources one side cites. Debate status and editorial review are separate fields. Add a missing position or challenge the framing in public."
    },
    {
      "id": "encyclopedia",
      "path": "/record/encyclopedia/",
      "title": "The Charitology Encyclopedia",
      "group": "Flagship references",
      "order": 1,
      "summary": "A searchable reference work on charity-system concepts, with aliases, source lists, review labels and downloadable reading dossiers.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "26 searchable concept entries with source lists, review labels and downloadable reading dossiers. Entries remain editorial drafts pending contributor review.",
      "conditions": [
        "missing-profession"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Fifty entries, each checked by a second contributor.",
      "help": [
        "Write a missing entry: copy any file in src/content/encyclopedia/ and follow STYLE.md.",
        "Check an entry’s sources and change its review status to reviewed.",
        "Suggest a topic in an issue labeled encyclopedia."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/record/lexicon/",
        "/record/principles/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "A field needs a shared vocabulary before it can argue well. The Encyclopedia is that vocabulary at full length: each entry explains one concept, where it came from, what the evidence says and how it connects to the charity system.\n\nEvery entry follows [the Charitology Standard](/record/methodology/): plain language, a source for every factual claim, and an honest label where people disagree. Short definitions live in [the Lexicon](/record/lexicon/). Book-length arguments live in [Principles of Charitology](/record/principles/).\n\n## Use this reference base\n\nSearch the full entry text, filter by linked system condition or review status, and inspect each source list. Select entries to download a reading dossier that keeps the original text, references and review labels together. Share a filtered view or reading-list link when you want someone else to start from the same material.\n\n## Coverage and review\n\nThis is a working collection, not complete coverage of the field. Entries remain drafts until the review standard is met. A source count describes the record; it does not establish the quality of the evidence."
    },
    {
      "id": "evidence-library",
      "path": "/record/evidence-library/",
      "title": "Evidence Library",
      "group": "Research archives",
      "order": 1,
      "summary": "Every source cited anywhere on Charitology, in one bibliography, with the pages that cite it.",
      "status": "live",
      "conditions": [
        "measurement-gap",
        "silence-about-failure"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Check a source and fix a broken link.",
        "Add a stronger primary source to an entry that cites a secondary one."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/record/methodology/",
        "/record/interventions/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "The Library is built automatically from the `sources` of every page on the site. When a page cites something, it appears here with a link back. If a source is wrong or a link has died, every page that relies on it is one click away."
    },
    {
      "id": "failure-archive",
      "path": "/record/failure-archive/",
      "title": "Failure Archive",
      "group": "Research archives",
      "order": 2,
      "summary": "A searchable archive of documented failures and mixed results, with settings, lessons, source lists and downloadable learning dossiers.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "8 searchable failure and mixed-result cases with lessons, sources and research dossiers. Inclusion does not estimate failure rates or judge the people involved.",
      "conditions": [
        "silence-about-failure"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Ten organizations voluntarily publish a failure here.",
      "help": [
        "Add a documented failure with sources and the organization’s published response.",
        "Submit your own organization’s failure. It will be credited as an act of leadership."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/programs/failure-lab/",
        "/open-problems/the-failure-commons/",
        "/open-problems/when-charity-harms/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Evidence about what did not work can improve later decisions. Charitology’s working hypothesis in [the Silence About Failure](/diagnosis/silence-about-failure/) asks whether the system makes those lessons harder to share. This archive collects documented failures and mixed results, each written as a lesson for the system.\n\nThe entries examine published actions and results, without inferring anyone’s motives. Where an organization has responded publicly, its response is included.\n\n## Use this reference base\n\nFilter by recorded result, place, depth or review status. Inspect the original case and its sources before drawing a lesson. Select several cases to assemble a learning dossier that keeps the context and uncertainty attached to each one.\n\n## Coverage and review\n\nThe archive reuses documented cases from the historical collection. It is not a complete record of failure, a causal model of every failure or a claim about anyone’s motives. Mixed results remain labeled as mixed."
    },
    {
      "id": "gap-map",
      "path": "/record/gap-map/",
      "title": "The Gap Map",
      "group": "Flagship references",
      "order": 5,
      "summary": "Where charitable money goes, and a question for the Depth Census: how much reaches the sources of problems?",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "Financial baseline charts and a local depth census with classification coverage, undo and validated backups. No global depth estimate is claimed.",
      "conditions": [
        "symptom-trap",
        "story-bias",
        "parked-money"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "The first published estimate of giving by depth, from the Depth Census.",
      "help": [
        "Check and update the recipient figures against the next Giving USA release.",
        "Work on the Depth Census, the missing axis.",
        "Map foundation flows from the WHOFUNDS grant graph."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/open-problems/the-depth-census/",
        "/record/state-of-charity/",
        "/record/cause-atlas/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Use the published U.S. financial baseline alongside a local depth-census workspace. The worksheet records actual activities, money and classification rationales, retains unclassified money and exports the sample for another contributor to inspect. A personal sample does not fill the global evidence gap."
    },
    {
      "id": "interventions",
      "path": "/record/interventions/",
      "title": "Intervention Database",
      "group": "Flagship references",
      "order": 3,
      "summary": "A searchable intervention reference with evidence and depth filters, cost context, side-by-side recorded fields and source-linked research dossiers.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "15 sourced intervention records with six filters, side-by-side field comparison and research dossiers. Costs retain their original outcomes and caveats; review remains pending.",
      "conditions": [
        "measurement-gap",
        "single-lens"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Every intervention with a Cochrane or Campbell review is in the database.",
      "help": [
        "Add an intervention with sources: copy any file in src/content/interventions/.",
        "Update an evidence grade when a new systematic review appears.",
        "Add a cost-per-outcome figure only from a published, credible estimate."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/tools/impact-calculator/",
        "/tools/compare-tool/",
        "/programs/evidence-reviews/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "An *intervention* is a specific thing done to make life better: a bed net, a cash transfer, a law against lead paint. The Database records what each one does, where it sits on the [depth scale](/method/#depth), how strong the evidence is and how long its effects last.\n\nCost per outcome appears only where a credible source publishes one, with its date and caveats. The starter database does not yet contain a comparable cost estimate for source-level work. How to build one is part of [Open Problem 3](/open-problems/measuring-the-source/). The [Impact Calculator](/tools/impact-calculator/) and the [Compare Tool](/tools/compare-tool/) read straight from this database.\n\n## Use this reference base\n\nSearch mechanisms and sources, then filter by cause, depth, evidence grade, time to effect, cost-data availability or editorial review. Select two to four entries to compare their recorded fields. Download a dossier to retain the full text, source list and estimate caveats.\n\n## Coverage and review\n\nThe comparison never turns the records into a ranking. Cost estimates may refer to different outcomes, settings, dates and models. Unknown is not zero, and an evidence grade is separate from human editorial review."
    },
    {
      "id": "lexicon",
      "path": "/record/lexicon/",
      "title": "The Lexicon",
      "group": "Thought and teaching",
      "order": 4,
      "summary": "The vocabulary of the field, defined in plain language.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "A searchable glossary with cross-references, definition study mode and CSV export.",
      "conditions": [
        "missing-profession"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Add a term with a pull request to src/data/lexicon.json.",
        "Sharpen a definition."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/record/encyclopedia/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Find definitions across terms and their full text. Use study mode to reveal definitions deliberately, follow related terms or export the glossary. Definitions describe how this project uses the words; they do not settle disputes about values or causal models."
    },
    {
      "id": "journal",
      "path": "/record/journal/",
      "title": "Journal of Charitology",
      "group": "Thought and teaching",
      "order": 1,
      "summary": "Essays and research for the field, reviewed in public. Volume 0 opens with the manifesto.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "Real proposed-method papers and a manuscript desk. Independent peer review is not completed.",
      "conditions": [
        "missing-profession",
        "silence-about-failure"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Volume 1, with at least five peer-reviewed papers, including one reporting a null result.",
      "help": [
        "Submit an essay or paper as a pull request to src/content/journal/.",
        "Review a submission in public."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/manifesto/",
        "/record/principles/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Volume 0 publishes the founding manifesto and two substantial proposed-method papers. They remain editorial drafts, not peer-reviewed findings. The submission desk builds a complete source-linked manuscript and saves a private draft; public submission and human review take place through a pull request.\n\n## How review works\n\nSubmissions are pull requests. Two independent human contributors must check the sources and approve a paper before it is described as peer-reviewed. Their public review thread stays linked. AI assistance, conflicts, methods, missing data and null results must be disclosed."
    },
    {
      "id": "methodology",
      "path": "/record/methodology/",
      "title": "Methodology Handbook",
      "group": "Thought and teaching",
      "order": 6,
      "summary": "Exactly how Charitology labels evidence, classifies depth, reviews pages and handles corrections.",
      "status": "live",
      "conditions": [
        "silence-about-failure",
        "missing-profession"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Propose a change to the method in an issue labeled methodology.",
        "Red-team a rule below."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/method/",
        "/contribute/",
        "/programs/red-team/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "## Evidence labels\n\nClaims about the charity system carry one of four labels:\n\n- **Established** means strong published evidence from several independent sources.\n- **Documented** means credible sources report it; the size of the effect is less certain.\n- **Debated** means credible people disagree. Both sides are shown.\n- **Hypothesis** means Charitology’s own working claim, untested, and testing it is the work.\n\nInterventions carry an evidence grade: *strong*, *moderate*, *mixed*, *weak* or *unknown*. The grade applies to the specific outcome claimed.\n\n## Depth classification\n\nWork is classified by where it acts, using the five levels in [the Method](/method/#depth): relief, repair, prevention, structure, source. Classify by the primary mechanism of the work, not its aspirations. When work spans levels, classify by where most of the money goes and note the rest. Depth classifications of named organizations are hypotheses and cite the organization’s own description of its work.\n\n## Sources\n\nEvery factual claim has a source the writer has read. Primary sources come first. Paywalled sources get a free alternative where one exists. If no source can be found, the claim is removed.\n\n## Review\n\nNew pages start as **drafts**. A page becomes **reviewed** when a second contributor has checked every source and the framing against [the Standard](https://github.com/theguysaccount/charitology/blob/main/STYLE.md). Reviews happen in public pull requests.\n\n## Corrections and red-teaming\n\nEvery page links to a prefilled issue for corrections and one for challenges. Corrections are fixed in public. Significant corrections are noted in the pull request that makes them. A red-team challenge stays open until it is answered with evidence, either by changing the page or by explaining why it stands.\n\n## AI assistance\n\nAI tools may help draft pages. Their use is disclosed in the pull request, and a human contributor is responsible for checking every claim. Edition 0 was drafted with AI assistance and is being reviewed in public.\n\n## Ratings\n\nCharitology publishes no ratings of named organizations. That changes only after a rating method has been published and has survived public red-team review."
    },
    {
      "id": "myths",
      "path": "/record/myths/",
      "title": "Myth-Busting Series",
      "group": "Thought and teaching",
      "order": 5,
      "summary": "A searchable collection of beliefs about giving, their editorial verdicts, source lists, review status and downloadable discussion dossiers.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "8 searchable belief analyses with verdict and condition filters, sources and discussion dossiers. Verdicts describe claims; contributor review remains pending.",
      "conditions": [
        "overhead-myth",
        "story-bias"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Propose a myth in an issue labeled myth.",
        "Strengthen a verdict with better sources."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/method/#checklist",
        "/diagnosis/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Each entry takes a belief people commonly hold about giving and checks it against the evidence. Verdicts are *false*, *misleading* or *half true*, and each entry says what’s true in the belief before saying what isn’t, then suggests a better question to ask.\n\n## Use this reference base\n\nSearch the full text and sources, then filter by editorial verdict, linked system condition or human-review status. Read the full entry for what is true in the belief, where it fails and what to ask instead. Select entries to make a source-linked discussion dossier.\n\n## Coverage and review\n\nVerdicts apply to the belief as worded. They do not judge people who hold it, replace the cited argument or show that a second contributor has reviewed the page."
    },
    {
      "id": "open-datasets",
      "path": "/record/open-datasets/",
      "title": "Open Datasets",
      "group": "Research archives",
      "order": 6,
      "summary": "Every Charitology dataset as open JSON, plus the public datasets the field builds on.",
      "status": "live",
      "conditions": [
        "measurement-gap",
        "fragmentation"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Build something with the data and link it in an issue.",
        "Suggest a public dataset the field should use."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/tools/public-api/",
        "/record/evidence-library/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Charitology’s content collections and shared datasets are available as structured data under CC BY 4.0. The endpoints are static JSON files and need no application key. The hosting provider’s normal limits still apply. Full documentation is on the [Public API](/tools/public-api/) page."
    },
    {
      "id": "podcast-and-newsletter",
      "path": "/record/podcast-and-newsletter/",
      "title": "Podcast and Newsletter",
      "group": "Thought and teaching",
      "order": 7,
      "summary": "Six narrated textbook episodes with transcripts, a podcast feed and the first issue of The Charitology Letter.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "Six actual MP3 episodes, transcripts and podcast RSS; a published letter and dedicated RSS. Email delivery is not configured.",
      "conditions": [
        "story-bias",
        "missing-profession"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "A first season of six episodes, one per group of conditions in the Diagnosis.",
      "help": [
        "Pitch an episode: a guest, an open problem or a failure worth telling.",
        "Help produce the first season."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/record/journal/",
        "/contribute/",
        "/feed.xml"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "The first audio season contains six complete readings from the open textbook, openly labeled computer narration. Each has an MP3, transcript, sources and a podcast feed. The Charitology Letter has a published first issue and its own RSS feed. Neither a guest interview series nor email delivery is claimed."
    },
    {
      "id": "principles",
      "path": "/record/principles/",
      "title": "Principles of Charitology",
      "group": "Thought and teaching",
      "order": 3,
      "summary": "The field’s open textbook, written chapter by chapter in public.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "The complete ten-chapter textbook, full reading and print edition, download, search and private reading notebooks.",
      "conditions": [
        "missing-profession"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Improve a chapter with a pull request.",
        "Propose exercises for the Principles course.",
        "Translate a chapter."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/programs/principles-course/",
        "/programs/certified-charitologist/",
        "/record/encyclopedia/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Read ten substantive chapters in order or by topic. Use the complete reading and print edition, download the Markdown book or keep private questions in each chapter’s notebook. The self-paced course adds exercises and assessment; reading alone does not certify competence."
    },
    {
      "id": "state-of-charity",
      "path": "/record/state-of-charity/",
      "title": "State of Charity Report",
      "group": "Annual publications",
      "order": 1,
      "summary": "The yearly state of the charity system. Edition 0 sets the baseline: what we know, what we don’t, and what to measure first.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "A complete Edition 0 baseline with financial definitions, project coverage, unknowns and a downloadable report.",
      "conditions": [
        "measurement-gap",
        "missing-profession"
      ],
      "firstMilestone": "Edition 1, with the first Depth Census estimate.",
      "help": [
        "Propose a measure for next year’s report in an issue labeled state-of-charity.",
        "Source a figure the report is missing."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/record/gap-map/",
        "/diagnosis/",
        "/open-problems/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Edition 0 is a published baseline report. It separates source estimates from project counts, stocks from flows and measured quantities from unknowns. The downloadable edition includes source links and definitions. Later editions can compare changes only when dates, scopes and methods are compatible."
    },
    {
      "id": "progress-report",
      "path": "/record/progress-report/",
      "title": "Open Problems Progress Report",
      "group": "Annual publications",
      "order": 3,
      "summary": "Where every open problem stands, whether open, partly answered or solved, updated as results come in.",
      "status": "live",
      "conditions": [
        "missing-profession"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Report a partial result in an issue labeled open-problem.",
        "Review a claimed result before its status changes."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/open-problems/",
        "/programs/the-open-problems/",
        "/programs/question-bounties/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "This report is generated from the problem files themselves, so it is always current. A problem’s status changes only after a result has been published and reviewed in public."
    },
    {
      "id": "traditions",
      "path": "/record/traditions/",
      "title": "Giving Traditions Library",
      "group": "Thought and teaching",
      "order": 2,
      "summary": "A searchable library of giving traditions, with practices, interpretive limits, source lists, review labels and reading dossiers.",
      "status": "live",
      "statusNote": "8 searchable traditions with practice, origin, lens, sources and reading dossiers. These draft sketches cannot represent a whole living tradition.",
      "conditions": [
        "single-lens"
      ],
      "help": [
        "Add a tradition with authoritative sources, ideally written with people who practice it.",
        "Correct an entry from inside the tradition."
      ],
      "related": [
        "/method/#frameworks",
        "/tools/values-compass/"
      ],
      "sources": [],
      "review": "draft",
      "body": "Each entry describes a tradition on its own terms, using the sources listed there, then asks what its practices suggest about symptoms and sources. The depth reading is Charitology’s interpretation, open to correction by people who practice the tradition.\n\n## Use this reference base\n\nSearch across titles, descriptions, practices, interpretive lenses and source names. Filter by the tradition covered or editorial review, then select entries for a reading dossier that keeps their different terms and contexts visible.\n\n## Coverage and review\n\nThis is a bounded introduction to the sources represented here, not complete coverage of a religion, culture or every school within it. The depth lens is Charitology’s interpretation, open to correction from people who practice the tradition."
    }
  ]
}