Generate a Logframe from an Existing Theory of Change
Operationalize a finalized theory of change into a 4x4 logframe matrix with goal, outcomes, outputs, and activities as rows and narrative, indicators, means of verification, and assumptions as columns, aligned to donor template expectations.
Draft: Generate a Logframe from an Existing Theory of Change
Your Prompt
- What You Need
- Provide the agreed ToC text, result statements, indicator definitions, baseline and target evidence, template, and resource constraints.
- Choose This Prompt When
- Use this to convert an agreed ToC into a logframe. Choose Create a Logframe to build one from broader program inputs, or Create a ToC from Narrative first if the pathway is not settled.
Describe your goal, audience, available information and constraints. Your words are added to the prompt as supplied. You can also use the guided fields below.
Kept in this tab while you work. Copy and Start includes this description.
Copy this prompt and paste it into your AI chat to start. If it needs source material, the AI will ask for it.
Evidence and applicability: use only supplied or verifiable evidence for historical facts, values, quotations, completed activities and approvals. Preserve conflicting sources with their provenance; do not choose a preferred value without adjudication. Mark missing evidence as unknown or not evidenced, not as proof an activity never occurred. Keep proposed plans and illustrative examples separate from findings. Never invent a baseline, quote, pilot, validation or sign-off to complete a template. Match methods to the purpose and population; a suitable single-method design is valid. Distinguish descriptive change from causal attribution. Check obligations in the applicable funding agreement rather than assuming a universal donor rule.
You are a senior MEAL specialist. Your task is to operationalize a finalized Theory of Change into a logframe matrix aligned to donor template expectations.
Theory of Change: paste your ToC narrative with long-term outcome, intermediate outcomes, outputs, activities, and assumptions
Donor Logframe Template: the relevant donor logframe template
Program Constraints: your program's M&E budget, timeline, and data availability constraints
Requirements:
Follow the actual supplied donor template. If none is supplied, use Goal, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities as result levels and Narrative Summary, Indicators, Means of Verification and Assumptions as columns; expand rows to represent actual ToC results rather than imposing four rows. Follow these specifications:
- Goal Row: A single goal statement derived from the long-term outcome in the ToC. Include impact-level indicators only where the goal and measurement scope justify them (population-level changes). Specify means of verification appropriate for impact (e.g., national household surveys, routine health information system data, program endline).
- Outcomes Row: outcomes corresponding to the actual intermediate outcomes in the ToC. Give each outcome the indicators needed to measure it (mix of quantitative and qualitative where relevant). Indicators should measure behavior, capacity, or system changes, not deliverables.
- Outputs Row: outputs matching the ToC, linked to their outcomes. Each output connects to a specific outcome in the ToC. Output indicators should be deliverable-focused (counts, percentages completed, milestones reached) and directly attributable to program activities.
- Activities Row: Key activity clusters under each output. Do not list every task; group activities by type (e.g., 'training delivery', 'community mobilization', 'technical assistance'). Indicators at this row are typically process indicators (activities delivered, participants reached).
- Means of Verification: For every indicator, specify the data source with precision. Describe the specific source, population, timing and responsible role where known; otherwise name the missing decisions. Do not invent a sample, vendor, platform or verification cadence. Align with the donor template expectations.
- Assumptions: Testable assumptions at each row, drawn from the ToC. Assumptions should describe external conditions that must hold for the next level to be achieved.
- Baselines: Where baseline data is not yet collected, use the placeholder baseline: unknown, with collection phase to confirm for that indicator. Do not fabricate baseline values.
Quality Checks:
- Check the hypothesized vertical logic: whether activities plausibly produce outputs, outputs contribute to outcomes, and outcomes contribute to the goal under the stated assumptions. Do not treat the pathway as proof of causal attribution.
- Confirm horizontal logic: each row's indicators, verification sources, and assumptions align coherently.
- Flag any indicator that is not SMART.
- Flag any means of verification that is vague or infeasible given your program constraints.
Output Format:
Present the logframe as a markdown table following the supplied template or the default result levels and columns above; mark template compliance unverified if the template was not supplied. Follow the table with a short quality-check summary (2-4 bullet points) noting any weak links, missing baselines, or feasibility concerns.
If essential material is missing: Ask for the actual ToC, governing template, definitions, baselines, data-source access, and budget before constructing a submission-ready matrix. A ToC title or template name is not its content. Leave unknown baselines and targets explicit, and propose verification sources without inventing samples, vendors, or collection schedules.
Check: Score It with the Logframe Quality Assessment Rubric
The Review Prompt
Paste the draft at the bottom of this prompt and run it. It scores each criterion from 1 to 5 and says why.
Establish the document purpose, design, stage, applicable requirements, and available source evidence before rating. Distinguish N/A with a reason, not evidenced, unresolved conflicting evidence, and observed inadequate performance. Missing records do not prove an activity did not occur. Missing records alone justify evidence requests and a deferred readiness decision, not an inferred failure or mandatory repeat activity. Do not invent documentary, signature or approval requirements. Cite document locations for every finding. Keep supported facts separate from proposals, assumptions, and illustrative examples. Never invent completed fieldwork, validation, consent, approval, values, dates, quotations, or assigned ownership. Label unconfirmed owners and proposed revisions for confirmation. Report blocking ethics, safety, confidentiality, measurement-validity, or inference failures first regardless of scores. Give a total and band only when all five dimensions are applicable and sufficiently evidenced with no unresolved evidence conflict; otherwise show the dimension profile, coverage, and evidence requests without a total, band, or rescaled equivalent. A documentation score never authorizes use, fielding, compliance, or approval.
You are an expert M&E advisor. Score the logframe I will provide using the rubric below.
SCORING RUBRIC - Logframe Quality Assessment Rate applicable dimensions 1-5. For item-rate anchors, report defective/applicable reviewed items. Zero defects among applicable reviewed items earns 5; no applicable items is N/A. Blocking defects override the rate: Choose the highest anchor fully supported by the evidence; a material defect takes precedence over a favorable element count. An absent required feature in a complete submitted artifact is an observed documentation defect; an unavailable source or record is not evidenced, not proof the underlying activity failed.
DIMENSION 1: Intervention Logic
- Score 5: Causal chain explicit at every link from activity to goal. Each link has a stated rationale. A reviewer unfamiliar with the program can trace the logic without supplementary information.
- Score 4: Causal chain explicit at every level with no more than two links assumed rather than stated. Overall logic is plausible.
- Score 3: Causal chain present but half or more links are assumed rather than stated. A reviewer can follow the general direction but must fill in multiple steps.
- Score 2: Half or more outputs do not clearly lead to their stated outcomes, OR causal direction is wrong at one or more levels.
- Score 1: No clear causal logic. Activities and outcomes appear unrelated.
DIMENSION 2: Indicator Quality
- Score 5: All indicators name a specific metric, measurable unit, target population, and time period. Each directly measures the result statement. Disaggregation specified where relevant.
- Score 4: More than 0% and at most 10% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 3: More than 10% and at most 20% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 2: More than 20% and at most 50% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 1: More than 50% of reviewed applicable items have defects, or a critical item has a blocking defect. Report the blocking issue separately; no aggregate approval follows.
DIMENSION 3: Assumptions and Risks
- Score 5: Assumptions stated at every outcome and goal level. Each is specific (not "political stability"), testable, and genuinely external to program control.
- Score 4: Assumptions present at every outcome and goal level. No more than two are vague, but major dependencies are identified.
- Score 3: Assumptions present at half or more outcome and goal levels. Those listed are recognizable as external conditions but half or more are stated too broadly to monitor or are trivially true.
- Score 2: Assumptions present at less than half of outcome and goal levels, OR half or more are trivially true or are program activities.
- Score 1: No assumptions stated, or all stated items are program activities.
DIMENSION 4: Results Hierarchy
- Score 5: Standard four-level structure (activity, output, outcome, goal). Each level consistently differentiated. No items at the wrong level.
- Score 4: Standard structure recognizable. No more than two items at the wrong level.
- Score 3: Standard structure recognizable but at least three items at the wrong level. Distinction between outputs and outcomes inconsistently applied.
- Score 2: Half or more items at the wrong level, OR outputs and outcomes systematically conflated.
- Score 1: No recognizable hierarchy. All results listed at one level.
DIMENSION 5: Monitoring Provisions
- Score 5: Every indicator has a specific named source of verification, collection frequency, and method. Responsible party named per indicator. Every results level has at least one indicator.
- Score 4: More than 0% and at most 10% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 3: More than 10% and at most 20% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 2: More than 20% and at most 50% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 1: More than 50% of reviewed applicable items have defects, or a critical item has a blocking defect. Report the blocking issue separately; no aggregate approval follows.
OUTPUT FORMAT: Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:
| Dimension | Score (1-5), N/A, or Not Evidenced | Evidence from Logframe | Priority Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention Logic | |||
| Indicator Quality | |||
| Assumptions and Risks | |||
| Results Hierarchy | |||
| Monitoring Provisions |
First report blocking issues, unresolved conflicts, applicability and evidence coverage. Only if all five dimensions are applicable and sufficiently evidenced with no unresolved source conflict, report Total: X/25 and Band: Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10), as a secondary documentation summary. Otherwise omit both total and band; report the dimension profile and evidence requests without rescaling. Single Most Important Revision: [One specific sentence]
For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.
LOGFRAME TO SCORE: [Paste your logframe here]
Fix: Revise What Scored Low
The Revise Prompt
Paste the draft and its scores at the bottom of this prompt. It revises the parts that scored below 4.
Establish the document purpose, design, stage, applicable requirements, and available source evidence before rating. Distinguish N/A with a reason, not evidenced, unresolved conflicting evidence, and observed inadequate performance. Missing records do not prove an activity did not occur. Missing records alone justify evidence requests and a deferred readiness decision, not an inferred failure or mandatory repeat activity. Do not invent documentary, signature or approval requirements. Cite document locations for every finding. Keep supported facts separate from proposals, assumptions, and illustrative examples. Never invent completed fieldwork, validation, consent, approval, values, dates, quotations, or assigned ownership. Label unconfirmed owners and proposed revisions for confirmation. Report blocking ethics, safety, confidentiality, measurement-validity, or inference failures first regardless of scores. Give a total and band only when all five dimensions are applicable and sufficiently evidenced with no unresolved evidence conflict; otherwise show the dimension profile, coverage, and evidence requests without a total, band, or rescaled equivalent. A documentation score never authorizes use, fielding, compliance, or approval.
You are an expert M&E advisor. Review the draft logframe I will provide and fix every problem that falls below the Good (4) threshold on the Logframe Quality Assessment rubric.
Separate supported corrections from evidence requests and proposed text requiring confirmation. A plausible owner, date, rationale, or account of an activity is not a verified fact. Preserve unresolved source conflicts.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND FIX:
Intervention Logic problems: Outputs that do not logically lead to the stated outcome. Outcomes that do not connect to the goal. Causal links that require assumptions not stated in the logframe.
Indicator Quality problems: Indicators that lack a time dimension. Indicators that measure activity completion rather than results (e.g., "workshops held" at outcome level). Vague indicators that could mean anything (e.g., "improved capacity").
Assumption problems: Assumptions that are trivially true ("staff will be hired"). Assumptions that are actually program activities. Missing assumptions at outcome or goal level. Assumptions stated so broadly they cannot be monitored.
Results Hierarchy problems: Behavioral changes listed as outputs. Direct program products listed as outcomes. Activity-level results at goal level.
Monitoring Provision problems: Sources listed as "project reports" without specifying what document, how often, or who is responsible.
OUTPUT FORMAT: For each problem found:
- Dimension: [which dimension]
- Location: [which row/indicator in the logframe]
- Problem: [one sentence describing what is wrong]
- Revised version: [the corrected text]
Then provide the complete revised logframe incorporating all corrections.
DRAFT LOGFRAME TO REVISE: [Paste your draft logframe here]