PUBLIC RISK DIAGNOSTIC

A Diagnostic Preview of the Survivor Alignment Index (SAI)

Spot Your Public Surface Vulnerabilities in 10 Quick Checks.

Most donor drop-offs and public media scandals don't happen because of bad intentions they stem from unnoticed public surface risks.

The question is not whether your public surface is being judged. It is, every day, by donors, journalists, and increasingly by automated screening tools. The only question is whether you see the verdict before they do. The ten checks below give you the first honest answer.

Below is a 10-point diagnostic preview derived from our 100-Point Survivor Alignment Index. These are binary, verifiable checks that donors, journalists, and critics can test on your website right now.

• No internal documents or passwords required.

• No staff paperwork or interviews needed.

• Simply check YES or NO based on what is publicly clickable on your website today.

THE 10-POINT DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

I. Narrative Accuracy & Claim Integrity

1. Beneficiary Counting Logic:
   Does your website publish a clear, public explanation defining how you calculate total beneficiary numbers for example, distinguishing between direct medical care recipients and indirect community members?

2. Attributed Quotes:
   Are beneficiary or community quotes in your public materials attributed to a specific role, location, or project context rather than appearing as anonymous, decontextualised statements?

II. Visual Dignity & Representation Standards

3. Stock Photo Ban:
   Does your website explicitly ban generic stock photography for field representation?

4. Children Depicted Safely:
   Across all active campaigns, are children fully clothed, in safe environments, and engaged in normal/positive activities with no staged misery, dirtied faces, or artificial distress?

III. Consent Lifespans & Image Rights

5. Removal Procedure:
   Does your website publish a clear procedure detailing how community members or photographed subjects can request the removal, updating, or correction of their images or stories?

6. Consent Separate from Aid:
   Does your published consent policy explicitly state that media consent is collected as a separate, independent step strictly unlinked from the delivery of humanitarian aid or services?

IV. Operational & Financial Transparency

7. Financial Report Access:
   Is your latest complete annual financial report available to download directly without requiring an email address, registration, or paywall?

8. Local Partner Financial Flows:
   Does your public financial reporting show specific financial flows, allocations, or partnerships with local organisations and community groups in your project countries?

V. Institutional Trajectory & Public Proof

9. Active Agents Narrative:
   Does your public narrative consistently position local communities and partners as active agents and decision-makers rather than passive recipients of aid?

10. Case Studies of Failure:
    Does your website provide clear, written case studies analysing past project challenges or programmatic failures?

INTERPRETING YOUR SCORE

• 8 - 10 Points (Low Exposure):
  Strong baseline public transparency. Your website demonstrates solid defensive shielding against public scrutiny and is on track for full verification.

• 6 - 7 Points (Moderate Exposure - Basic Threshold):
  Active blind spots detected. You meet the absolute minimum baseline, but missing policy footers or verification links leave room for donor questions and narrative disconnects.

• Under 6 Points (Critical Exposure - Action Required):
  These ten checks preview the logic of the full instrument; they do not scale linearly to the 100-point evaluation. A pattern of NO answers here is a strong signal that the full evaluation would find structural gaps worth closing.