---
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/"]
---

## The method lab is open

Build 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.

## The public rating gate

A 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.

## Questions the review must settle

Every 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.