A ToC is not a logic model with arrows. It is an argument about how change happens, with the assumptions made visible and testable. This skill enforces that standard.
Ask in one batch. Do not start drafting without the first four.
Long-term outcome or vision: the change Ane wants the programme to contribute to, stated in language the target population would recognise (required)
Target population and context: who, where, what constraints shape their lives (required)
Programme scope: what interventions the programme can actually deliver (required)
Timeframe: short (12 mo), medium (3 yr), long (5-10 yr) markers (required)
Existing analysis: prior ToC, needs assessment, or evaluation findings (optional)
Feminist political economy analysis: who holds power in this system, how gender and other axes shape access (optional but required for SRHR; will prompt if missing)
Work backward from the long-term outcome. Never forward from activities.
从长期成果倒推，绝不能从活动顺推。
Step 1 — articulate the vision
步骤1 — 明确愿景
Write the long-term outcome as one sentence. Must be specific enough to be falsifiable. "Improved SRHR outcomes" fails. "Adolescent girls in [region] access quality contraception within 30 minutes' travel, without third-party consent" passes.
What must be true for the long-term outcome to hold? List preconditions at medium-term and short-term horizons. Each precondition is itself a change state, not an activity.
Causal claim: why does A lead to B in this context?
Assumption: what must be true, outside the programme's control, for A to actually lead to B?
Evidence status: tested (cite the source), plausible (cite the framework), or untested (flag for evidence gap)
针对每一组前提条件之间的关联，明确：
因果主张：在该背景下，为什么A会导致B？
假设：在项目控制范围之外，必须满足什么条件，A才能真正导致B？
证据状态：已验证（注明来源）、合理（注明框架）或未验证（标记为证据缺口）
Step 4 — apply the feminist political economy lens
步骤4 — 应用女性主义政治经济学视角
Do not skip this, even if the programme is not labelled SRHR. For each node:
Whose interests does this change serve? Whose interests does it threaten?
What power relations must shift for this change to stick?
Which voices defined this outcome? Who was consulted? Who co-designed?
If these questions cannot be answered, mark the precondition with
⚠️ Feminist political economy analysis missing
.
即使项目未标注为SRHR，也不可跳过此步骤。针对每个节点：
该变革服务于谁的利益？威胁到谁的利益？
要让变革持续，必须转变哪些权力关系？
该成果由哪些群体的声音定义？咨询了谁？谁参与了共同设计？
若无法回答这些问题，需在该前提条件旁标记
⚠️ 缺失女性主义政治经济学分析
。
Step 5 — identify threats to the ToC
步骤5 — 识别ToC面临的威胁
From Mayne (2019): what alternative explanations would account for the expected change if the programme were not running? What other contributions are likely? Name them.
State the evaluative question the ToC must eventually answer. Follow Mayne (2019) phrasing: "To what extent and in what ways did the programme contribute to [outcome], given other contributions and context?"
When will the ToC be revisited in light of the evidence?
针对每个假设，明确：
什么可以证实该假设？
什么可以推翻该假设？
哪些数据源可以提供相关证据？
何时会根据证据重新审视ToC？
Output structure
输出结构
Produce a ToC document with these sections under these H2s:
Vision — one sentence, as described in Step 1
Context and population — two paragraphs max
Pathway diagram — text representation: each precondition as a node, each link described in one sentence. If the user needs a visual, produce Mermaid source.
Preconditions by horizon — three columns (short / medium / long), each precondition one line
Causal claims and assumptions — table: From → To, Causal claim, Assumption, Evidence status
Feminist political economy analysis — per-node power and participation notes
Threats to the ToC — rival explanations and other contributions
Contribution question — one sentence
Evidence plan — table: Assumption, Confirming evidence, Disconfirming evidence, Data source, Revisit date
Every framework claim cites author and year. Mandatory versions:
Vogel (2012) "Review of the Use of 'Theory of Change' in International Development" (DFID)
van Eerdewijk et al. (2017) "White Paper: A Conceptual Model of Women and Girls' Empowerment" (KIT)
Mayne (2019) "Revisiting the Contribution Question" Evaluation 25(3)
Cornwall & Rivas (2015) for feminist framing when relevant
所有框架主张需注明作者及年份。必须引用的版本：
Vogel (2012) 《Review of the Use of 'Theory of Change' in International Development》（DFID）
van Eerdewijk et al. (2017) 《White Paper: A Conceptual Model of Women and Girls' Empowerment》（KIT）
Mayne (2019) 《Revisiting the Contribution Question》 Evaluation 25(3)
相关情况下，引用Cornwall & Rivas (2015) 的女性主义框架
Writing rules
写作规则
Follow CLAUDE.md house style. No hedging in causal claims — if the claim is uncertain, state that the evidence is untested. No logical leaps — if Step 3 cannot name the causal mechanism, mark the link as