B
NARRATIVE VALUE
Certainty
●●● high
ABCDEFG
There is no confirmed −; independently verified + decide the position (B). No unreachable strike-through.= non-additive meter
As of: 2026-Q4Status: ActiveCeiling reason: No confirmed −
History2026-Q4BHistory grows each quarter
Medic (Community Health Toolkit): Tools in the hands of health workers who walk to the last house. The letter is B; certainty is high. Unconfirmed concerns are placed under “Watching.” (As of 2026-Q4; estimate based on public information.)
Main narrative
Where the clinic is hours away on foot, the front line of health care is the community health worker. She records visits, follows a pregnancy, spots danger signs and pushes for referral. Medic, founded in 2007, builds the software behind that work and gives it away as open source.
The Community Health Toolkit at its core is built offline-first, for places with no signal. The worker opens the app, sees her household list, fills in a form, and the data syncs when the connection returns. Over three years the number of health workers supported has grown 3.4-fold, from 40,000 to more than 180,000 across 24 countries. In 2026 it received the Digital@UNGA Award for Digital Inclusion from the ITU and UNDP. Health ministries and NGOs run the software themselves, so it can be handed on without being tied to a vendor.
One person’s story (N1)
+ A single story
The benefit appears collectively. Where the clinic is hours away on foot, it is community health workers who record visits and check for danger signs. Because the system works offline, the number of health workers supported has grown 3.4-fold in three years, from 40,000 to more than 180,000 across 24 countries. In 2026 it received the Digital@UNGA Award for Digital Inclusion from the ITU and UNDP. Source type: program-official and recognition by international bodies
Source nature: T2 program-official. Positive effects are not used to offset negatives.
Positive / negative effects
+ effects
- The positive side of this assessment rests on the single story (N1) above and its source. A per-item ledger of positive effects has not yet been compiled for this organization.T2 program-official
Watching (unconfirmed; not counted in the assessment)- Grant-dependent funding
- outcomes shaped by the operating capacity of adopters
Looking ahead (not included in the assessment)- Expanding countries and health workers covered and handing systems to governments.
A second look
The effect depends on how adopting ministries and NGOs operate it, and does not necessarily extend to better pay or conditions for the health workers themselves. The organization that gives the software away still depends on grants.
Sources
+N1The Last Door, First: The CHT Wins the 2026 Digital@UNGA Award｜2026｜🔗
How to read this assessment
A Independently verified +, with no confirmed −
B Leans +, with independent backing
C Mixed. A confirmed − sets the ceiling, or much is unverified
D A serious confirmed − sets the ceiling
E A serious − reaches the core of the organization
F Serious and systemic, with little redeeming +
G Only extreme cases
Out of scope An entity whose core purpose is illegal
On hold Independent evidence is scarce on both + and −
- Reachable upper bound (ceiling): a confirmed − sets the ceiling, and independently verified + decide the position within it. + do not cancel out −.
- The weight of evidence is not symmetric: only confirmed − are counted; the volume of disputes or allegations goes under “Watching.” + are counted from independent evidence, while an organization’s own PR is treated as “reference.”
- Size is not value: scale is not used in the assessment. Matters that stay within money or competition—investors, shareholders, sanctions, trade secrets—are also excluded.
- The letter (assessment) and certainty (how reliable the information is) are separate axes.
This is a translation; the Japanese version is authoritative. The assessments here are generated automatically by AI based on published criteria. The operator does not alter individual results. Because they are AI-generated they may contain errors, and they are opinion and commentary, not statements of fact. Where evidence is insufficient, the entry is marked “On hold.” Requests for correction are accepted via the form.
Terms: Narrative Value = an assessment (A–G) of the distance between the narrative an organization tells and its reality / Ceiling meter = a visualization of the reachable upper bound / Watching = unconfirmed matters not counted / Protected stakeholders = people, animals, nature, and future generations. | Generated by: AI | As of: 2026-Q4 | Back to top