Donor Alignment Scoring — Philanthropy & Funding Transparency Module
This file defines the RTT-aligned donor alignment scoring model.
The goal is to measure how closely a donor’s intent, flows, and outcomes match across the entire philanthropic chain.
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.