Program · Research

Red Team

A standing practice of attacking Charitology’s own claims. Every entry page links to a prefilled GitHub issue for challenging what it says.

Live

What it is

A red team is a group whose job is to attack a plan before reality does. Charitology’s Red Team is a standing practice rather than a committee. Anyone can join, and the target is Charitology itself. Every claim on the site, from a number in a condition to the depth scale itself, is open to challenge.

How it works

Every entry page ends with a “Challenge a claim” link. It opens a GitHub issue labeled red-team, prefilled with the page’s address and a prompt asking what should change and what the source is. Challenges are discussed in public. When one holds up, the page changes in the open, and significant corrections are noted in the pull request that makes them.

Some claims get a deeper review. Charitology publishes no ratings or rankings of named organizations until its method has passed public red-team review. Running that review is this program’s first major task, and the programs that would rank organizations, such as the Charitology Fund, wait on it.

Why it matters for the system

The Silence About Failure applies to Charitology too. A field that studies other people’s mistakes has to publish its own first, or it teaches the opposite of what it says. The Red Team makes being wrong in public routine, and a corrected page counts as progress.

It also guards against the Single Lens. A site written mostly by people who share one framework can miss what other frameworks see. Red-teamers are invited to argue from a framework they don’t hold, and a challenge that shows a missing perspective is treated as a finding.

Risks and limits

A red team only works if people show up, and it can drift toward easy targets such as typos instead of the claims that matter most. Challengers are invited to start with the conditions labeled hypothesis on the Diagnosis, because so much of the field is built on them.

What success looks like

Within two years, the method has passed a public red-team review and every major claim has been challenged at least once. The record shows claims that changed because someone proved them wrong.