Let’s do this.

Records · Verification table

Child hunger: verification of what changed after the 5 November fresh read, 6 November 2026

The working record behind the pages, published as written. Source file source/verify/child-hunger-2026-11-06-additions.md. All records.

Scope. Every claim in a line added or changed in content/child-hunger.html, content/child-hunger-learn.html and content/child-hunger-practice.html between ee6f7b8 and HEAD (244a844), from git diff ee6f7b8 HEAD -- <the three pages>, that has no row in source/verify/child-hunger-2026-11-05.md. Where a changed source line swapped one URL for another, the new URL was also checked against the sentences that cite it (rows L5, P15). The Do page and every other file are out of scope; issues found there are listed as proposals at the end.

Method. Each source was fetched fresh on 2026-11-06, about 14:20 to 14:32 UTC (09:20 to 09:32 EST; date stamps 14:23 and 14:32). WebFetch was tried on the first three (IDEAS, NBER, E-utilities). It returned paraphrases and declined to quote more than 125 characters, so every source was then pulled with curl (browser user agent) to get exact sentences: HTML was stripped of tags, PDFs were read with pdftotext -layout, and the JSON and XML APIs (NCBI E-utilities, Crossref, Europe PMC) were read as returned. No verdict rests on a search snippet or on memory. Paper titles and author names were treated as unverified until read on the paper's own record.

Verdicts. CONFIRMED = the source's words support the page as written. CORRECTED = the page was changed to match the source. NOT IN SOURCE = the cited source does not say it; the claim was reworded or removed. NEWER DATA, UNREACHABLE, BLOCKED, UNFETCHABLE: none this run. Grades (the site's scale, content/about.html): primary = the original document; research = peer-reviewed work; preprint = not yet peer-reviewed; evaluator; charity's own figures; news; internal = this repo's own files.

Fetch log.

---

1. Overview — content/child-hunger.html

#ClaimSource URLFetchExact quoteVerdictGradeFix applied
O1Do door: "Give where the evidence is strongest, or pay for a child's treatment, and call Congress. Script included."content/child-hunger-do.htmlreadStep 1: "Give monthly where the evidence is strongest." Step 2: "Or pay to treat starving children specifically." Step 3: "Call your senators before December 11." … "The script is below."CONFIRMEDinternalnone
O2Expired-date message: "Whether the funding lapsed or was extended is being re-checked"source/stale.tsvread"2026-12-11 child-hunger/do, child-hunger/practice, index FY2027 spending deadline; the call script's $165M / $1.2B / $900M figures". The overview itself is not named in that row.n/a (a statement of the site's own process, not a sourced claim)internalnone (proposal 7)
O3Origin line: "Ending child starvation, an essay from 2025"source/essays/child-starvation.md (Medium RSS, https://medium.com/@isaac.holze/ending-child-starvation-4f4d51156e7d)read"# Ending Child Starvation" / "Tue, 20 May 2025 15:05:53 GMT"CONFIRMEDprimary (the essay)none
O4Origin line: "its page lists what has changed since it was written"source/corrections.jsonread"child-hunger": [ "&ldquo;Every ten seconds&rdquo; and &ldquo;three million a year&rdquo; come from 2011 data. …" (plus further entries)CONFIRMEDinternalnone

2. Learn — content/child-hunger-learn.html

#ClaimSource URLFetchExact quoteVerdictGradeFix applied
L1s1 title: Black et al., "Maternal and child undernutrition"https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=23746772&retmode=text&rettype=abstract (page links https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23746772/)OK (curl)"Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries."CORRECTED (the title was cut short)researchlink text → "Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries"
L2s1: "Black et al., The Lancet, 2013 (3.1 million, 45%, 2011 data)"as L1OK (curl)"Lancet. 2013 Aug 3;382(9890):427-451." "Black RE(1), Victora CG(2), …" "We estimate that undernutrition in the aggregate … is a cause of 3·1 million child deaths annually or 45% of all child deaths in 2011."CONFIRMEDresearchnone
L3s1 grade: Black et al. labelled primarycontent/about.html; 5 Nov row L3readabout.html: "primary is the original document. research is peer-reviewed work, preprint when it isn't yet." The 5 Nov table graded this paper "research" (L3).CORRECTED (a peer-reviewed Lancet paper is research on the site's own scale)researchprimary → research
L4s3: FAO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026 (645 million people faced hunger in 2025), July 2026, primaryhttps://www.fao.org/publications/home/fao-flagship-publications/the-state-of-food-security-and-nutrition-in-the-world/en (301 → same path without /home/); press release https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/un-report--global-hunger-levels-ease-for-third-consecutive-year-as-regional-disparities-persist/enOK (curl)SOFI page: "JUST RELEASED The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026 … It is estimated that 645 million people faced hunger in 2025." Press release, dated "21/07/2026": "according to The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026 (SOFI 2026) report, released on Tuesday by five United Nations specialized agencies … This means that around 645 million people were affected by hunger in 2025".CONFIRMED (title, figure, July 2026, grade)primarynone (the old URL still resolves through a 301)
L5Fact 6 after s5 dropped Fortune: "Donor health aid then fell sharply in 2025" now rests on the Goalkeepers PDF alonehttps://goalkeepers.gatesfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2025-goalkeepers-report_en.pdfOK (PDF)"And this year, reductions to health funding have put achieving the SDGs even further out of reach." "References to reduction in global health funding used in this report refer to cuts to overseas development assistance (ODA) announced by donor governments in 2025 (Australia, … United Kingdom, United States). The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) assumes that changes in ODA proportionally affect development assistance for health (DAH)." The PDF gives no size for the 2025 fall. Its methods say "Based on estimated funding cuts for the year 2025" and point to IHME's Financing Global Health 2025. (Per 5 Nov row L16, the figure behind "sharply" was Fortune's "fell 26.9% below 2024 levels"; Fortune is no longer cited in s5.)NOT IN SOURCE ("sharply"; the cut itself is confirmed)primary"Donor health aid then fell sharply in 2025" → "Donors then cut health aid in 2025"
L6s5: Goalkeepers 2025 report "(4.6 million child deaths in 2024, projected to rise to about 4.8 million in 2025)"as L5OK (PDF)"In 2024, 4.6 million children died before their fifth birthday. In 2025, that number is projected to rise for the first time this century, by just over 200,000, to an estimated 4.8 million children."CONFIRMED (also 5 Nov row L17; re-read because the link is new to s5)primarynone
L7s9: "Secretary Rubio's 21 May 2025 testimony, fact-checked by The Washington Post, 28 May 2025"https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2025/05/28/fact-check-rubio-claims-its-a-lie-that-people-have-died-from-foreign-aid-cuts/OK (curl)Byline "Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post"; "Published: May 28, 2025"; "Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “No one has died because of USAID -” … Rubio: “That’s a lie.” - exchange at a congressional hearing, May 21"; "Rubio earns Four Pinocchios."CONFIRMED (date, testimony, fact check; the contest paragraph's "no one has died" matches)newsnone
L8s9 link: the text "The Washington Post" links to adn.comas L7OK (curl)Page title "… - Anchorage Daily News"; author field "Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post". The link is the Anchorage Daily News reprint, not washingtonpost.com.CORRECTED (the link text named the wrong host; page rule "link text says where it goes")news"fact-checked by <a>The Washington Post</a>, 28 May 2025" → "fact-checked by The Washington Post, 28 May 2025, <a>as reprinted by the Anchorage Daily News</a>" (same URL)

3. Practice — content/child-hunger-practice.html

#ClaimSource URLFetchExact quoteVerdictGradeFix applied
P1Every year: "Each autumn: GiveWell re-reviews its top charities; its page was last updated October 2026."https://www.givewell.org/about/FAQ; https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charitiesOK (curl)FAQ: "Does GiveWell’s list of Top Charities change? When is it updated? Every year, we revisit our current Top Charities to assess whether they should remain on our list, taking into account factors such as updated room for more funding." Top charities: "Last updated: October 2026". Neither page names a season.CORRECTED ("autumn" was inferred on 5 Nov from two dates; GiveWell commits only to a yearly review)evaluator"Each autumn:" → "Once a year:"
P2Calendar: "One reminder on the first of each month that opens this page. It holds no dates or figures"tools/app.js lines 179–201; the page's data-url="/child-hunger/practice/"read'DTSTART:' + y + pad(m) + '01T100000', 'RRULE:FREQ=MONTHLY', 'DESCRIPTION:' + icsText('Open ' + url + ' and do what is due this month.'), 'URL:' + urlCONFIRMEDinternalnone
P3With others 1: "hearing what others gave raised gifts by about 12%"https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/econjl/v119y2009i540p1422-1439.htmlOK (curl)"We find the most influential level of social information is drawn from the 90th to 95th percentile of previous contributions. We furthermore find the effect to be significant for new members but not for renewing members. In the most effective condition, social information increases contributions by 12% ($13)."CORRECTED (12% is the best condition, not the general effect)research"by about 12%" → "by up to 12%"
P4With others 1: "offering a split between a favourite cause and an effective one raised the effective share by 76%"https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade7987 (BLOCKED for tools at science.org); read via https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1126/sciadv.ade7987 and https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9848424/fullTextXMLOK (alt)Abstract: "We gave donors the option to split their donations between their personal favorite charity and an expert-recommended highly effective charity. This bundling technique increased donors’ impact without undermining their altruistic motivation, boosting effective donations by 76%." Study 1a (N = 895, MTurk, stakes paid by lottery): "Adding the bundle option increased total donations to the effective charity by 76% (three-option bundle: M = $14.51 and SD = 19.4 versus control: M = $8.23 and SD = 22.2 …)".CORRECTED (the paper measures dollars to the effective charity, not its share)research"raised the effective share by 76%" → "raised donations to the effective one by 76%"
P5With others 1 and 2: evidence label moderatesource/impact/child-hunger-2026-11-05.mdread"Grade moderate for the mechanisms, none-but-plausible for outcomes."CONFIRMED (matches the impact review)internalnone (evidence spans kept, per brief)
P6With others 2: "A one-to-one match raised giving in a field experiment; bigger ratios added nothing."https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jandreon/PhilanthropyAndFundraising/Volume%202/14%20KarlanList.pdfOK (curl, PDF)"Using direct mail solicitations to over 50,000 prior donors of a nonprofit organization, we tested the effectiveness of a matching grant on charitable giving. We find that the match offer increases both the revenue per solicitation and the response rate. Larger match ratios (i.e., $3:$1 and $2:$1) relative to a smaller match ratio ($1:$1) had no additional impact, however." Table 2A: response rate "0.018" (control) vs "0.021" (1:1); dollars given per letter "0.813" vs "0.937".CONFIRMED (the match was a lead donor's grant in a mail appeal, not an employer match; the sentence claims only "a field experiment")researchnone
P7With others 3: "The one US action with trial evidence is helping a family enrol."https://www.nber.org/papers/w24652OK (curl)"We calibrate the key parameters using a randomized field experiment in which 30,000 elderly individuals not enrolled in – but likely eligible for – the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are either provided with information that they are likely eligible, provided with this information and also offered assistance in applying, or are in a “status quo” control group. Only 6 percent of the control group enrolls in SNAP over the next 9 months, compared to 11 percent of the Information Only group and 18 percent of the Information Plus Assistance group."NOT IN SOURCE ("the one US action with trial evidence" is not in the paper; the people in the trial were elderly individuals, not families). The impact review says "best-evidenced US action per hour", not the only one.research→ "Help with the application raised SNAP enrolment in a randomised trial with older adults."
P8With others 4: "Volunteering and donations keep children in institutions"https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC7311356/fullTextXMLOK (curl)"Finally, we consider volunteers, visitors, and private donations, which are all important drivers of institutionalisation." "Submissions to the committee highlighted that the availability of donations and volunteers helps to create incentives for sustaining or expanding the number of institutions for children"CONFIRMEDresearchnone
P9With others 4: "… when most have a living parent."as P8OK (curl)Panel 5 (legal reform in Australia): "Submissions indicated that many children in institutions do have a living parent, but that parents perceive, or have been told by institution recruiters, that their child will escape poverty through access to education and a better life in the institution." The paper gives no share. (The 80% figure is ReThink Orphanages', unsourced on its page per the impact review, and is not cited on this page.)CORRECTEDresearch"most" → "many"
P10Drill 5 after s6 dropped Fortune: "Then aid fell sharply in 2025"as L5OK (PDF)As L5: "this year, reductions to health funding …"; no 2025 magnitude in the PDF.NOT IN SOURCE ("sharply")primary→ "Then donors cut aid in 2025"
P11s8: Shang and Croson, Economic Journal, 2009, researchas P3OK (curl)"Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2009." "Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1422-1439, October."CONFIRMED (authors, venue, year, grade)researchnone
P12s8 title: "A field experiment in charitable contribution: the impact of social information"as P3OK (curl)"A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods"CORRECTED (cut short)researchtitle completed: "… on the voluntary provision of public goods"
P13s8 authors: "Caviola et al."https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1126/sciadv.ade7987OK (curl)Authors: "Lucius Caviola", "Joshua D. Greene" (two only); Europe PMC: "Caviola L, Greene JD."CORRECTEDresearch"Caviola et al." → "Caviola and Greene"
P14s8 link text "bundling effective and favourite charities" given where the other entries give titlesas P13OK (curl)Title: "Boosting the impact of charitable giving with donation bundling and micromatching"CORRECTED (a description stood in for the title)researchlink text → the title
P15s8: Caviola, Science Advances, 2023, researchas P13OK (curl)Container "Science Advances", volume "9", issue "3", article "eade7987", issued "2023-01-20".CONFIRMEDresearchnone
P16s8: Karlan and List, "Does price matter in charitable giving?", American Economic Review, 2007, researchas P6OK (curl, PDF)"Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment / Author(s): Dean Karlan and John A. List / Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 97, No. 5 (Dec., 2007), pp. 1774-1793"CONFIRMED (authors, venue, year, grade; the page gave the title without its subtitle)researchsubtitle added: "Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment"
P17s9: Finkelstein and Notowidigdo, "Take-up and targeting: experimental evidence from SNAP", 2018as P7OK (curl)"Take-up and Targeting: Experimental Evidence from SNAP"; "Amy Finkelstein and Matthew J. Notowidigdo"; "Issue Date May 2018"CONFIRMED (authors, title, year)researchnone
P18s9 grade research on a 2018 working paper with no venue namedas P7OK (curl)"Published Versions Amy Finkelstein & Matthew J Notowidigdo, 2019. " Take-Up and Targeting: Experimental Evidence from SNAP*, " The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol 134(3), pages 1505-1556."CORRECTED (venue: an NBER working paper alone is preprint on the site's scale; the peer-reviewed version exists, so research holds once it is named)researchadded "NBER working paper, 2018; published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2019"
P19s10 URL: Goldman et al. → https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32589867/https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=32589867,32589873&retmode=text&rettype=abstractOK (curl)PMID 32589867: "Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Aug;7(8):703-720. … Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children 1: a systematic and integrative review of evidence regarding effects on development. van IJzendoorn MH(1), …". PMID 32589873: "Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 Aug;4(8):606-633. … Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children 2: policy and practice recommendations for global, national, and local actors. Goldman PS(1), …"CORRECTED (the link went to the commission's other paper, with a different first author and journal)researchURL → https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32589873/
P20s10 title: "Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children"as P19OK (curl)"Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children 2: policy and practice recommendations for global, national, and local actors."CORRECTED (cut short; the short form fits both papers of the commission)researchfull title
P21s10 venue: "the Lancet Group Commission, 2020"as P19; full text as P8OK (curl)"Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 Aug;4(8):606-633"; full text: "The work of this Lancet Group Commission has been motivated by the evidence of such damaging effects marshalled in our accompanying review meta-analysis."CORRECTED (the venue is the journal; the commission is what the paper belongs to)research→ "The Lancet Child &amp; Adolescent Health, 2020, part of a Lancet Group Commission"
P22s10: Goldman et al., 2020, researchas P19OK (curl)"Goldman PS(1), Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ(2), …"; "Epub 2020 Jun 24."CONFIRMED (first author, year, grade)researchnone
P23s7: "Doss, FAO ESA working paper 11-04, March 2011"https://www.fao.org/4/am309e/am309e00.pdfOK (curl, PDF)"If women hold up half the sky, how much of the world’s food do they produce? / Cheryl Doss / ESA Working Paper No. 11-04 / March 2011"; "And overall, there is no support for the 60-80% figure at a global scale."CONFIRMED (author checked today; number, date and quote also 5 Nov rows P12, P21)primarynone
P24s7: FAO, The status of women in agrifood systems, 2023 (women are 50% of agrifood-system workers in sub-Saharan Africa)https://www.fao.org/3/cc5343en/online/status-women-agrifood-systems-2023/gender-work-agrifood-systems.htmlOK (curl)"The status of women in agrifood systems, 2023. Rome, FAO."; "While globally a larger number of men than women are employed in agrifood systems, women constitute 50 percent of all agrifood-system workers in sub-Saharan Africa and over 40 percent of all agrifood-system workers in several other regions"CONFIRMED (also 5 Nov row P13)primarynone
P25Checklist: "Gift set up: GiveWell monthly, ALIMA or the IRC monthly, or Taimaka once."content/child-hunger-do.html #giveread"GiveWell → choose Monthly at the top …"; "ALIMA … → choose United States, then Recurring donation."; "International Rescue Committee, monthly."; Taimaka "One-time gifts only".CONFIRMED (matches the Do page; the external facts are 5 Nov rows D11, D14, D15, D17)internalnone

4. Changed lines already covered by 5 November rows (not re-verified)

5. Summary

VerdictCountRows

37 rows: overview 4, Learn 8, Practice 25.

VerdictCountRows
CONFIRMED19O1, O3, O4, L2, L4, L6, L7, P2, P5, P6, P8, P11, P15, P16, P17, P22, P23, P24, P25 (P16's title also had its subtitle restored)
CORRECTED14L1, L3, L8, P1, P3, P4, P9, P12, P13, P14, P18, P19, P20, P21
NOT IN SOURCE3L5 ("fell sharply", Learn fact 6), P10 ("fell sharply", Practice drill 5), P7 ("the one US action with trial evidence … a family") — all three reworded to what the source says
NEWER DATA · UNREACHABLE · BLOCKED · UNFETCHABLE0No claim went unread. Two hosts refused tools but the paper was read elsewhere: science.org (Caviola and Greene, read through Crossref and Europe PMC; P4, P13–P15) and pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (cookie page; records read through E-utilities; L1–L2, P19–P22).
n/a1O2 (the site's own process)

Where the walk stops: Shang and Croson was read as its IDEAS abstract only, so the "new members only" caveat comes from the abstract; Karlan and List was read in full (JSTOR copy of the published article). Caviola and Greene's 76% is study 1a (895 MTurk participants, stakes paid by lottery), not a live donation drive. The "living parent" sentence in Goldman et al. reports submissions to an Australian parliamentary committee, not a count. The 2025 health-aid figure behind the old "sharply" is IHME's (Financing Global Health 2025), which no page cites now.

Contest a fact, suggest something, or tell us what’s broken

If someone is in danger right now, don’t use this form. Call your local emergency number (911 in the US). For trafficking: 1-888-373-7888, or text 233733.

What is it?

No name, no account. Your note goes into the site’s private records, nothing about your browser or connection is stored with it, and the email box is the only way we’d know who you are. The weekly review reads every note, re-reads the original source, and fixes the page if it should. A contested fact and its outcome are listed on Contested, in the review’s words, never yours.

No tracking on any link.Ticks stay on this device.What changedContested