OpenPriors · structured judgment

Manifund under the microscope

Recent Manifund funding proposals, judged by LLMs answering one small question many thousands of times: which of these two shows more of this quality, and by how much? The default ranking is an Analytic Hierarchy Process built from nothing but those answers: how much each quality matters to a funding goal, which direction is good, and how much each proposal shows it. Pick a goal to re-rank the slate, pick one quality to rank by it alone, or open any card to see exactly why it scores what it scores.

Loading judgments…

alive on the ledger

The same AHP, running as a product

Everything above is a frozen study. This section is live: the August 8–15 cohort judged on four canonical axes through the public judgements API, and the axes themselves judged for importance under seven funder goals — the classical AHP weighting step as just another cardinal run whose entities are the axes. Weights are exp(latent), normalized; a proposal's score is the weight-summed z-score. Every number below links to the board and run it came from.

Funder goal

Axes: impact / $ (320 comparisons ↗)·theory of change (320 comparisons ↗)·track record (320 comparisons ↗)·epistemic integrity (320 comparisons ↗) — judged by openai/gpt-5.6-luna. Add your own: run an axis with lens manifund and it appears here — no deploy, no permission.