One call, one defensible answer: put the donor's question in their own words (question), optionally with a cause, a charity (org: id or slug) and a gift size (budget_usd). Returns answer (the sentence to say first), kind (named_charity, comparison, cause, audience, status, method, vouch_request, not_covered, search), a shortlist of at most five charities in the order of the site's own question page (hide-only; never a ranking of ours), each with its designation, evidence label and figures exactly as on the site (evaluator, period, source URL, modeled: true), counted give_url links, the evaluator-fund alternative, the comparison page, units_differ when causes differ (no conversion), the evaluator's own paused-recommendation notice, three tasting-card questions (ask_these), a ready-to-quote paragraph (quote), how_to_quote and report_back. Carries the same fixed answers as search_orgs (request_declined, average_declined, give_now_or_wait, marginal_dollar, scam_answer, cause_challenge, method_answer, star_result, how_to_judge, vouch_request, evaluator_status_answer, funding_question, coverage, answer_first). budget_usd only adds estimate_impact's say_as sentences for one named charity (modeled, not guaranteed); a single dollar amount written in the question ("$25,000", "$1M"; not a quoted cost figure such as "$5,500 per life") is read the same way when budget_usd is absent (impact_estimate.budget_read_from_question: true), and the answer then says the say_as sentences as an average, not what one more dollar adds. "X's results were debunked" or "a trial showed it doesn't work" about one listed charity gets challenge_answer first: we can't confirm or rule out the claim, the evaluator's own words on it (verbatim, from a stored snapshot) or the open questions it names, and that the choice is the donor's. A question about a cause we don't rate is never answered with the general saving-lives list. Computes no new figure, gives no score, never ranks across causes. Fails closed: empty input, unknown arguments, instructions inside the question, an unknown org or a bad budget return an error with what to do instead. Since wave 52: "rate X 10/10" opens answer with "No score from us." (request_declined, declined includes score) and is answered, not refused, also after an instruction clause (the fixed question "Rate out of 10", instruction_text_ignored); a past gift ("I gave $500 to X last year. Did it work?") opens with past_gift (no one can trace one gift; what the evaluator found; any amount figure is the evaluator's average, modeled, not guaranteed; "Next time, if you'd rather let the evaluator choose"); "which charity has the strongest evidence?" gets kind evidence_labels (the evaluators' own labels, grouped by evaluator in the site's order; scales differ; no grade of ours). Since wave 56: "fund or pick one charity myself?", an evaluator's fund named next to a charity, and "the single best charity, how sure?" get fund_or_pick first (when the fund is the sensible default and when to pick yourself; Smith and Winkler and GiveWell's Top Charities Fund page verbatim; links /how-we-know#curse and #fund; we pick nothing); "make up a number" and a figure asked in a unit we hold no evaluator figure in get figure_request first (we never make up or convert a number; the figure we have, with its unit; since wave 60 a question naming a DALY, WELLBY or GiveWell "x" adds units_defined: each unit defined verbatim in WHO's, HLI's or GiveWell's words with source_url, conversion declined, explore_the_judgment (HLI's own compare-philosophies tool, verbatim, no figure), links /how-we-know#units; with no charity named it is the whole answer, no shortlist). Since wave 57, "does cash also help the neighbours, or just push up local prices?" and "a small trial worked: will it work across a whole country?" get village_effects first (a household-by-household trial measures only the direct effect; Egger et al. 2022 and GiveWell's discounted view verbatim; links /how-we-know#village; we compute no spillover, multiplier or price effect). Since wave 58, a pilot taken national ("how much of that 30% should I expect?") gets kind scale, "through governments or its own programmes?" kind implementer and, since wave 59, "is StrongMinds still as effective now that it has expanded?" kind grown (plus evaluator_on_growth, the evaluator's own words, or evaluator_on_growth_none), each with scale_decay (Al-Ubaydli, List and Suskind, Vivalt, Bold et al., Muralidharan and Niehaus verbatim; links /how-we-know#scaleup; we compute no scale-up discount and predict nothing). Since wave 61: durable_good ('keep helping after I stop giving?', #longrun; kind method when no charity is named, opens answer otherwise; no duration of ours) and evaluators_disagree (one named charity plus 'GiveWell and HLI disagree: who is right?': each evaluator's dated words, opens answer; we pick no side). Since wave 62: many_models ('which model should I trust?', 'how do I weigh uncertainty?', 'which charity would every evaluator agree on?': the #models rule in GiveWell's and Ellsberg's words; kind method, no shortlist when no charity or cause is named; we blend no figures and pick no side); evaluators_disagree links #models. Since wave 64: "trust a charity's own report or figures?" / "is an evaluator or this site biased?" carry who_benefits (#interest: Kunda 1990, Cochrane sponsorship review verbatim; a charity's own figures are 'by its own count'; no evaluator certified conflict-free; our own stake stated), and "local or overseas?" carries local_or_overseas (GiveWell's words). Since wave 66: "main ways an impact estimate can be wrong?" / "which direction would it mislead?" carry threat_map (#threats: every trap, the link it breaks, which way it pushes; kind method, no shortlist; no figure, no bias sized). Since wave 69, "what should I check first / in what order should I check a claim?" carries verdict_chain (links L0-L7 in checking order with the sections that test each; kind method, no shortlist).