Donor Alignment Scoring — Philanthropy & Funding Transparency Module
This scoring model is structural, not moral.
It evaluates alignment using RTT operators, SET load, governance substrate, and the triadic observer.
1. Purpose of Donor Alignment Scoring#
Donors often have clear intentions, but the philanthropic system introduces:
- multi-layer routing
- overhead
- narrative distortion
- governance asymmetry
- incentive misalignment
- drift at every layer
The Donor Alignment Score (DAS) reveals:
- how much of the donor’s intent becomes real outcomes
- where alignment is strong
- where drift occurs
- where structural corrections are needed
2. Core Alignment Components#
The Donor Alignment Score is built from four pillars:
- Intent Clarity — what the donor wants
- Flow Integrity — how money moves
- Outcome Coherence — what actually happens
- Regime Stability — what incentives shape the flow
Each pillar is evaluated using RTT operators.
3. Intent Clarity (INTENT)#
Intent is extracted from:
- donor mission statements
- grant agreements
- public commitments
- thematic priorities
- stated values
Operator:
INTENT(donor)
Intent clarity is high when:
- goals are specific
- constraints are explicit
- time horizons are defined
- metrics are measurable
4. Flow Integrity (FLOW + TRACE)#
Flow integrity measures:
- routing transparency
- leakage
- overhead
- conversion efficiency
- governance substrate stability
Operators:
FLOW(src → dst)
TRACE(path)
LEAK(node)
CONVERT(input → output)
Flow integrity is high when:
- routing is simple
- leakage is low
- overhead is justified
- funds reach intended nodes
5. Outcome Coherence (SIG + COH)#
Outcome coherence measures:
- measurable results
- alignment with intent
- structural impact
- community benefit
Operators:
SIG(data)
COH(system)
IMPACT(flow)
Outcome coherence is high when:
- outputs match intent
- outcomes match outputs
- community feedback aligns with results
6. Regime Stability (REG + DRF)#
Regime stability measures:
- authority balance
- narrative accuracy
- emotional cycles
- structural governance
Operators:
REG(type)
DRF(type)
ASYM(node)
OPA(node)
Regime stability is high when:
- authority is accountable
- narrative matches signal
- emotional cycles do not distort flows
- governance is transparent
7. Donor Alignment Score (DAS)#
The Donor Alignment Score is computed as:
DAS =
w1 * IntentClarity
+ w2 * FlowIntegrity
+ w3 * OutcomeCoherence
+ w4 * RegimeStability
Where each component is normalized to 0–1.
Example:
DAS(DonorA) = 0.72 (strong alignment)
8. Component Scoring (0–1 Scale)#
8.1 Intent Clarity#
- 0.9–1.0 → highly specific, measurable
- 0.6–0.8 → moderately clear
- 0.3–0.5 → vague or broad
- 0.0–0.2 → undefined or contradictory
8.2 Flow Integrity#
- 0.9–1.0 → minimal leakage, transparent routing
- 0.6–0.8 → moderate leakage, clear routing
- 0.3–0.5 → high leakage, complex routing
- 0.0–0.2 → opaque or broken flows
8.3 Outcome Coherence#
- 0.9–1.0 → outcomes strongly match intent
- 0.6–0.8 → partial alignment
- 0.3–0.5 → weak alignment
- 0.0–0.2 → outcomes contradict intent
8.4 Regime Stability#
- 0.9–1.0 → structural regime dominant
- 0.6–0.8 → mixed regimes
- 0.3–0.5 → narrative/emotional dominance
- 0.0–0.2 → authority/narrative distortion
9. Donor Alignment Report (AI-Generated)#
The AI Process Manager Agent (PMA) produces a donor alignment report:
Donor: DonorA
Intent: education access + community empowerment
Flow Integrity:
leakage: 18%
routing: 4 layers
overhead: moderate
Outcome Coherence:
outputs: 12 programs delivered
outcomes: 8 aligned, 4 partial
Regime Stability:
REG(NAR) at IntermediaryX
REG(STR) at LocalPartnerD
DRF(financial) at FoundationB
DAS = 0.72
10. Drift Detection in Donor Alignment#
Drift types:
- mission drift — intent vs program mismatch
- financial drift — funds not reaching intended nodes
- governance drift — authority imbalance
- reporting drift — narrative inflation
Operators:
DRF(type)
GAP(intent ↔ impact)
11. Structural Corrections (FIX)#
The PMA recommends corrections:
FIX(IntermediaryX) → reduce overhead
FIX(FoundationB) → increase payout rate
FIX(NGO_C) → improve reporting clarity
12. Summary#
The Donor Alignment Score provides:
- a structural measure of donor alignment
- a triadic view of intent, flow, outcome, and regime
- a neutral, AI-parsable scoring model
- a foundation for donor clarity reports
- a mechanism for correcting drift
This scoring model transforms donor evaluation from narrative to structure, enabling clarity, accountability, and alignment across the philanthropic ecosystem.