Hi Michael,

Thank you for your comment. 

Here is the relevant quote from Sinergia Post 1 (note: we didn't add the bracketed part in this quote, Sinergia did): ^[1]

the latter [number of piglets affected] was stated incorrectly because they didn't include the same discount. In other words: Sinergia never said the number of piglets was correct. It was an unintentional mistake of Sinergia’s team to leave all piglets, and not only male piglets on the spreadsheet that estimates the number of animals.

To further clarify:

• ACE gave Sinergia credit for helping female piglets through surgical castration commitments — even though female piglets can’t be surgically castrated.
• This issue is what led ACE to reduce Sinergia's impact calculation from 354 piglets per dollar to 285.

As stated in the ACE Post:^[2]

Vetted Causes states that, “ACE gave Sinergia credit for helping over 30 million female piglets through surgical castration commitments that Sinergia allegedly secured.” 

[...]

the impact estimate has been reduced from 354 piglets affected per dollar to 285 piglets affected per dollar.

1. ^{^}

   Sinergia Post 1 - See "Female Piglets Surgical Castration"

2. ^{^}

   ACE Post  - See "Issue 3"

@Jeff Kaufman 🔸, @Jason, @Toby Tremlett🔹,

Thank you for providing your opinions on this situation. Do you think it is reasonable for us to post our response on April 17? If so, we will notify Sinergia by email.

Thanks for the tip! We've implemented it.

Thanks for letting us know! Thankfully there was nothing that important that we covered in black bars. 

How did you get the text of the emails? We didn't think we posted it or share it with you, and you've included information we didn't think we posted, including the name of a previously anonymous member of Vetted Causes.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, I took this email as saying that you were sending them the post before posting in order for them to review, and clarify anything that needs clarifying

The clarifications refers to the 3 clarifying questions we sent (referenced in Email 7):

We didn't include this image in the list of emails before, but we've added it now. Sorry for the confusion!

The assumption is that since you are asking for their response, it's in their court to tell you how long a response would take.

We think there is a misunderstanding. We never asked Sinergia for a response to our article. We simply told Sinergia we would send them our article before publication. 

Hi Toby, thank you for your reply.

Here's the request you're looking for:

"after reviewing them, we will inform you of the time required to provide our response".

We’re a bit confused, because the quoted statement — "after reviewing them, we will inform you of the time required to provide our response" — does not request anything from us. It simply says Sinergia will do something. 

Hi Jason, thank you for your insights. We have decided not to post the article today to respect the charity's wishes as reasonably as we can.

We did not mention this in our initial post since we did not yet have permission from the charity (Sinergia) to post the emails. Now that we have permission, the full context regarding the "request to check on deadlines" can be found here (we don't want to strawman what Sinergia meant when they said this).

To me, that is enough to forbear from publishing tomorrow without getting into the lost e-mail issue at all.

Also, to clarify, Sinergia has indicated to us that no email was lost.