What hard rules drive the eligibility tool?
No public-interest work tied to Indonesia, an event deadline inside ten days, or a sender about to attach someone else’s identity data — those are hard fails. For-profit companies hard-fail. Independent people may pass. A hard fail is not counted as “almost.” The tool shows the volunteer lane or “do not apply,” not a decimal score.
Soft rules: no domain email yet, a spreadsheet that still has one editor, or a board that has not named a data owner. Those yield “finish the basics first,” not an immediate partnership.
How is the custom-versus-ready verdict built?
We count how many workflow steps can still live in email, folders and forms. If most steps are generic, the verdict is off-the-shelf. If identity data or a repeated approval queue exists, custom may be discussed. Visual design never tips the verdict to custom.
The tool and the guide use the same test. If they ever disagree, that is a defect — report it as a correction.
Why is there no numeric score of organisations?
Because we do not hold finance or field data to judge a yayasan, and because a self-authored score of a third party is nearly useless in rich results. The absence of a score is not evidence the organisation is bad. It is evidence we will not invent a metric.
When the first partner ships, we may show a usage measure the partner agrees. That is not a national reputation score.
How does JavaScript relate to the method, rather than to a score?
JavaScript only hides the verdict cards that do not match. Every verdict stays in the HTML. Crawlers, no-script readers and the quality audit read the same rules. If the script breaks one day, the page can still be cited because the result is not a hidden number in a file that never arrived.
This matters for machine citation. A model that summarises “the tool gave a score of 73” is hallucinating; that score does not exist. A model that summarises “hard-fail if the deadline is a ten-day event” is citing the method. We would rather be cited narrowly than cited as a ranking body.
Manual test: open the tool, turn JavaScript off, confirm every verdict card is still readable. If a card vanishes from the HTML, that is a P0 regression — worse than having no tool. This method page is the contract that the regression must not silently ship.
What changes a rule, and what is only a design change?
Changing a hard filter, the fail order, or the meaning of “an off-the-shelf tool already fits” is a method change. That changes the page date and must show up in the guide that uses the same test. Changing a button colour, button label or question order without changing the logic is not a method change and must not stamp lastmod as if a new fact arrived.
Example of a method change: adding the filter “not Indonesia operations.” Example of not-method: moving the submit button. If you see a new date without an explanation on this page, treat it as a defect and send the URL.
The tool code and the prose here must be checkable against each other. A volunteer who proposes secret weights will be declined. Secret weights are another way to invent a 0–100 score without admitting it.
How can a board replay a verdict in minutes without us?
Write the answer to each question as an organisation fact, then apply the rules on this page in order. A valid verdict is a sentence: apply, do not apply, finish the basics, or do not build custom. Do not record a “Kode Nirlaba eligibility score.” We do not publish scores. Your minutes are your register; this site is not the archive of board decisions.
If two board members get different verdicts from the same facts, one of them changed a fact or misread the hard-fail order. Compare against the HTML cards in the tool, not against memory of a demo.
Keep the date and URL of the method page you used. If the rules change later, the old decision can still be audited against the version that applied on that date. We do not promise a statute archive on this server; we promise a date on the page.
How should a board use this page in one meeting?
Read the short answer first, then the skip box, then the tables. If the verdict is “do not apply” or “do not build,” stop the meeting there. Do not send beneficiary data because this page exists. Bring the matching tool if you need the same test in interactive form. Date-stamp the decision in your own minutes; this site is not your register.
A board meeting does not need every paragraph. It needs a decision: apply, wait, or use an off-the-shelf tool this week. Print the filter table if there is one. Name a data owner out loud. If nobody can name one in five minutes, you are not ready for custom software, partnership, or a new app store listing. That pause is cheaper than a demo.
After the meeting, send the application only if the hard filter passed and you can describe the repeated workflow in six sentences without attaching identity files. If you were declined, keep the written reason. It is usually “a free tool already fits” or “finish domain email first.” Those are operational instructions, not insults. Re-apply when the facts change, not when the branding mood changes.
Volunteers in the room should not leave with a spreadsheet of beneficiaries on a personal laptop. The privacy policy and the PDP-law guide exist for that moment. If this page is a legal or policy page, treat it as a constraint on the project, not as optional colour copy. Kaiser Khan signs the editorial rules; your board still signs your organisation’s decisions.