# Givmark proposed review framework
Draft 0.1 — 8 September 2026. Not an operational assurance standard.

This draft framework is dedicated to the public domain under CC0 1.0 Universal: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
The dedication applies to this methodology text, not Givmark’s name, hallmark, software or third-party material.

## Purpose and boundary
Professional review of the document layer of a charitable organisation. This is not a statutory audit, field evaluation, accreditation, guarantee of impact, funding commitment or substitute for a funder’s due diligence. Operational protocols, service terms and tier definitions remain to be finalised before launch.

## Proposed dimensions
1. Financial integrity: inspect accounts, reserves, consistency and ratios. Use Benford analysis only where data are suitable; record applicability. Statistical anomalies prompt questions, never an automatic adverse determination.
2. Governance: inspect board structure, conflicts, remuneration and applicable compliance evidence. Record document dates and coverage.
3. Programme plausibility: compare stated outcomes, budgets, assumptions and relevant research. Verify each cited source directly. Distinguish evidence about an intervention from evidence about the organisation’s implementation.
4. Organisational integrity: review credible adverse media, applicable sanctions and substantiated misconduct. Distinguish allegations from findings and provide an opportunity to respond.
5. On-chain fund flows: where relevant, review declared wallets, transaction paths and counterparties. Record wallet-attribution uncertainty. A transfer does not establish delivery or impact.

## Proposed workflow
Agree scope and period; receive documents; identify and record provenance; conduct AI-assisted screening and cross-reference; put questions to the organisation; have a chartered accountant make a professional determination; publish the agreed record and its limitations where appropriate.

AI output is preliminary. The responsible professional verifies sources, resolves contradictions and records the reasoning for the determination. No autonomous issuing of badges.

## Proposed public record
Organisation, verification ID, review date and period, evidence inventory, agreed scope, applicable dimensions, material limitations, findings, response record, reviewer and current status. Revision, expiry and withdrawal procedures must be set before issuance. A pending review is not verified.

Tier I and Tier II are placeholder names. Neither maps to limited or reasonable assurance until formally defined, tested and adopted. No badge is issued by the waitlist website.