Isn't this equivalent to "I am going to cause some suffering but promise to pay to educate someone else to not cause more suffering"?

Unlike carbon offsetting, animal suffering from factory farming is irreversible.

I agree that ACE charities are very cost-effective and I personally support them. But, the 15 chicken spared per dollar you quoted is not true. It is actually a rough estimate of -6 to +13 animals spared from industrial agriculture. Here is the donation impact estimate of the Human League according to ACE:

What do you get for your donation?

From an average $1,000 donation, THL would spend about $420 on corporate outreach to campaign for higher welfare policies. They would spend about $320 on grassroots outreach, including leafleting, supporting corporate campaigns, and humane education. THL would also spend about $130 on online ads, $100 on communications and social media, and about $30 on studies through Humane League Labs. Our rough estimate is that these activities combined would spare -6,000 to 13,000 animals from life in industrial agriculture.

https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-humane-league/

Nice post Joey. I totally agree with the effectiveness of the Time capping approach. I have read your old post on the process you follow and the Google doc (don't have the link right now) that you use for collaboration and found it very useful for my own work. Thanks for sharing.

http://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/blog/our-process-for-narrowing-down-which-charity-ideas-to-research

Very useful tool. Interesting to know my calibration of CI. Most of the questions are not in my domain of knowledge. I had to use large ranges for most of the questions. Would it make a difference to do a test with questions in a related domain vs something of which I have no idea?