Theory of Change Causal Logic

Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.

You are an expert in theory of change and program design with experience reviewing causal pathways in development and humanitarian programs. Score the causal logic of the theory of change in the document I will provide using the rubric below. The document may be a standalone ToC, or a ToC embedded in a logframe, MEL plan, contribution analysis, adaptive management memo, or any document containing a causal pathway. Focus only on the causal logic, not on stakeholder engagement, presentation, or other holistic ToC dimensions.

SCORING RUBRIC - Theory of Change Causal Logic
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Causal Chain Plausibility
- Score 5: All four elements present. Each causal link is plausible based on evidence or programmatic logic. Links are not collapsed (e.g., outputs to outcomes are connected via a specific mechanism, not just an arrow). Mechanisms are named (HOW does X cause Y, not just THAT X causes Y). Counterfactual logic is considered (what would happen without this intervention).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Causal chain is plausible and most mechanisms named; counterfactual logic or one link partial.
- Score 3: Causal chain is broadly plausible but some links collapsed. Mechanisms implicit. Counterfactual not considered.
- Score 2: Multiple links collapsed into single arrows. Mechanisms missing. Logic feels aspirational rather than grounded.
- Score 1: Causal chain is implicit or absent. Outputs and outcomes listed without connecting logic.

DIMENSION 2: Assumption Identification
- Score 5: All four elements present. Assumptions are named at each link in the causal chain. Assumptions are testable or at minimum trackable (someone could observe whether they hold). Critical assumptions are distinguished from minor ones (e.g., "critical: government budget for service delivery is sustained"). Risk to the chain if an assumption fails is acknowledged with consequence stated.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Assumptions named at most links and trackable; critical-vs-minor distinction or failure consequence partial.
- Score 3: Some assumptions named but not at every link. Testability not addressed. Critical assumptions not distinguished.
- Score 2: Generic assumptions listed at the bottom of the ToC, not tied to specific links. No criticality ranking.
- Score 1: No assumptions named, or assumptions are platitudes ("stakeholders will cooperate").

DIMENSION 3: External Conditions and Risks
- Score 5: All four elements present. External conditions affecting the causal chain are identified across relevant categories (political, economic, social, environmental). Specific risks to the chain are named with likelihood and impact. Mitigation strategies for high-priority risks are documented. Boundary conditions are stated (where this ToC applies and where it does not, e.g., "this ToC assumes a stable security context").
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. External conditions and risks identified with mitigation; boundary conditions or likelihood/impact partial.
- Score 3: External conditions mentioned generically. Risks named but without likelihood or impact. Mitigation absent.
- Score 2: Vague mention of "external factors" without specifics. No risk register.
- Score 1: External conditions and risks not addressed.

DIMENSION 4: Evidence Base for Causal Claims
- Score 5: All four elements present. Causal claims are grounded in research, prior evaluations, or programmatic experience. Sources are cited where claims are based on external evidence (studies, evaluations, sector literature). Strength of evidence is acknowledged (strong empirical, programmatic experience, plausibility argument) for each major link. Gaps in the evidence base are flagged where they exist (e.g., "this link is based on plausibility; no direct evidence in this context").
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Most claims grounded and sources cited; strength acknowledgment or gap flagging partial.
- Score 3: Some claims grounded but sources missing for most. Strength of evidence not acknowledged. Gaps not flagged.
- Score 2: Causal claims asserted without grounding. Few or no sources. Evidence treated as uniform.
- Score 1: No evidence base. Claims are pure assertion.

DIMENSION 5: Testability and Falsifiability
- Score 5: All four elements present. The ToC could be tested with available or feasible methods (the team can articulate how they would know it is working). Indicators or signals are identified that would confirm or refute key links. A mechanism for revising the ToC based on emerging evidence is specified (when, how, who decides). Negative evidence is considered (what would tell us the ToC is wrong, not just what would confirm it).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Testability and indicators present; revision mechanism or negative-evidence consideration partial.
- Score 3: Some indicators identified but no clear test. Revision mechanism implicit. Negative evidence not addressed.
- Score 2: ToC presented as fixed. No indicators tied to causal links. No revision plan.
- Score 1: ToC is unfalsifiable. No way to know if it is right or wrong.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Document | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| Causal Chain Plausibility | | | |
| Assumption Identification | | | |
| External Conditions and Risks | | | |
| Evidence Base for Causal Claims | | | |
| Testability and Falsifiability | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Sound (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.

DOCUMENT TO SCORE:
[Paste your theory of change or the document containing the causal pathway here]