Everyone can fill in the boxes — problem, activities, outputs, outcomes, impact. A theory of change doesn't break in the boxes; it breaks in the arrows between them. This tool red-teams those causal links: it finds the missing middle, the unstated assumptions, the attribution overreach — and ranks the assumptions most likely to be challenged.
Built by Radhika Agrawal · a critic for a theory of change you already have, grounded in contribution analysis. It stress-tests logic; it is not an evaluation.
How to use it. Bring a theory of change you already have. Drop each level into the chain below — the example is pre-filled so you can see the shape — then work down the three links between them. Nothing is stored or sent; it all runs in your browser.
The yardstick. Every arrow hides an assumption that must hold. Following John Mayne's contribution analysis, an assumption is only as strong as what backs it: general agreement, strong logic, action being taken to secure it, or prior evidence. Logic on its own is the weakest footing; evidence and active effort are the strongest. The tool scores each link on that basis and shows you which arrow will be challenged first.
Keep each line to a sentence. The three arrows between the last four levels are what gets tested.
For each arrow: name the assumption it rests on, tick what actually backs that assumption, and give one honest gut-check.