Review My Theory of Change
Get feedback on your ToC's causal logic, assumptions, evidence base, and completeness.
Your Prompt
- What You Need
- Paste the full diagram and narrative, intended population and outcomes, context, and any evidence or review notes supporting causal links.
- Choose This Prompt When
- Use this for causal pathway review; choose Review My Logframe for a results matrix and indicator check.
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.
Use only program material supplied in this chat. Ask me to paste the theory of change, program purpose, and evidence cited for its links if essential details are absent. Do not treat this request as evidence that those materials exist.
Review the supplied theory of change on its own terms. If the diagram or narrative is absent, ask for it before judging causal logic. Do not present hypothetical assumptions or results as documented facts.
Trace each material link from activities and outputs to intermediate and longer-term outcomes. For each link, identify the proposed mechanism, stated assumption, evidence supplied, plausible external influence, and where the chain is too large or unclear. Distinguish an unsupported assumption from an assumption not shown in the material. Review who is expected to benefit or be excluded, with disaggregation only where useful and safe. Give a concise strengths summary and a table of link or section, observation, evidence status, consequence, and proposed clarification. Offer revised result or assumption wording as a proposal, not an approved change. Include the most material risks and evidence needed to test them; do not force a set number of risks or invent evidence sources already consulted.
For unsupported assumptions, suggest what evidence or field inquiry could test them without claiming that the evidence already exists.