ToC Pathway Completeness

Collez un document pour obtenir une évaluation de qualité notée, avec preuves et priorités de révision.

You are an expert M&E advisor specializing in theory of change. Score the causal pathway I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - ToC Pathway Completeness
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: End-to-End Coverage
- Score 5: Pathway connects inputs and activities through outputs, immediate outcomes, intermediate outcomes, long-term outcomes, and impact. Every level is represented. A reader can trace the full chain from what the program does to the population-level change it ultimately seeks.
- Score 4: All major levels are represented. One level (typically immediate or intermediate outcomes) is lightly populated but the chain still reads end-to-end.
- Score 3: Most levels represented but at least one is missing or collapsed (e.g., outputs and immediate outcomes treated as the same level, or impact stated without a long-term outcome layer). The chain has a recognizable shape but a level is absent.
- Score 2: Half or more levels are missing or collapsed. The pathway jumps from activities directly to long-term outcomes or impact without intermediate stages.
- Score 1: No end-to-end coverage. Either activities only, or outcomes only, with no pathway connecting them.

DIMENSION 2: Intermediate Outcomes
- Score 5: Every transition from short-term to long-term outcomes has a named intermediate step. The chain shows how knowledge or capacity becomes behavior, how behavior becomes practice, and how practice becomes population-level change. No level skipped.
- Score 4: No fewer than 80 percent of transitions have a named intermediate step. The remainder may compress two related outcomes into one but the logic is recognizable.
- Score 3: Half or more transitions have a named intermediate step. The remainder skip from short-term outcomes (knowledge, awareness, access) directly to long-term outcomes (population-level change) without naming the behavior or practice change that connects them.
- Score 2: Fewer than half of transitions have intermediate steps. The pathway is mostly short-term outcomes to ultimate goal with no named bridge.
- Score 1: No intermediate outcomes. Pathway reads as activities then ultimate goal with nothing between.

DIMENSION 3: Causal Logic
- Score 5: Each step credibly causes the next, with the mechanism stated. The chain reads as a series of if-then statements that a reader unfamiliar with the program could follow. No leaps requiring unstated theory.
- Score 4: Mechanism stated for no fewer than 80 percent of steps. The remainder are credible but the mechanism is implied rather than stated.
- Score 3: Mechanism stated for half or more steps. The remainder rely on common-sense connections that a reader could infer but which are not made explicit.
- Score 2: Mechanism stated for fewer than half of steps. Several transitions require unstated theory or contain implausible leaps.
- Score 1: No mechanisms stated. Pathway reads as a list of desired states with no causal explanation.

DIMENSION 4: Multiple Pathways
- Score 5: Where the program has multiple components, audiences, or contexts that operate through different mechanisms, alternative or branching pathways are shown. Convergence points (where pathways meet) are named. Single-pathway ToCs explicitly justify why one pathway suffices.
- Score 4: Major branching shown where relevant. One or two minor branches may be collapsed but the alternative pathway logic is recognizable. Convergence points named.
- Score 3: Branching referenced but not fully drawn out. The ToC acknowledges multiple components but the pathways are merged into a single line of logic, OR the ToC is single-pathway without justification despite obvious component differences.
- Score 2: No branching shown despite multiple distinct components or audiences. The ToC forces a single linear pathway onto a program that operates through several mechanisms.
- Score 1: No consideration of branching or alternative pathways. The ToC is a single linear chain with no acknowledgment of complexity.

DIMENSION 5: Scope Boundaries
- Score 5: The ToC explicitly states what the program does and does not cause. Where the program is one of several actors, contribution is acknowledged rather than attribution claimed. External actors and their contributions are named. The boundary between program-driven change and context-driven change is clear.
- Score 4: Scope reasonably bounded. Contribution acknowledged at major attribution points. One or two transitions may overstate program agency but the overall boundary is recognizable.
- Score 3: Scope implied but not explicitly stated. Contribution and attribution conflated at half or more transitions. External actors named in passing but their role in the pathway is not specified.
- Score 2: Over-ambitious scope at multiple points. Program claims full credit for changes involving many actors. External actors not named.
- Score 1: No scope boundary. ToC claims attribution for population-level change with no acknowledgment of other actors or contextual factors.

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

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| End-to-End Coverage | | | |
| Intermediate Outcomes | | | |
| Causal Logic | | | |
| Multiple Pathways | | | |
| Scope Boundaries | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (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.

THEORY OF CHANGE TO SCORE:
[Paste your Theory of Change diagram or narrative here]