Edit: I just found out that there have been detailed, expert reviews of Founders Pledges work in the past. See Johannes Ackvas comment below.
Preface: Although I do focus on Founders Pledge, this doesn't mean that I think that they are especially under-reviewed. More generally I don't mean to criticise FP, I just wanted to share this argument and see what people think about it.
Last time I checked I couldn't find any in-depth, expert reviews of the cost-effectiveness estimates of Founders Pledge. I know that there isn't one for their evaluation of the Clean Air Task Force. GivingGreen and SoGive have looked at some of them, but not deeply. (They told me this in correspondence). So there are tw0 possibilities:
(i) they didn't have any such reviews or
(ii) they had reviews, but didn't publish them
Lets first assume (i) is the case.
The argument seems straightforward for why they should get those reviews:
If such an expert would find out that FP is significantly off, then this is valuable information, because it might lead investors to change the amount they donate.
If such an expert verifies FPs models, then this is valuable information too. In that case, their research seems much more trustworthy from the outside, which plausibly attracts more investors. This is especially true, because some of those cost-effectiveness estimates are really spectacular. Take the claim that CATF averts 1 ton of CO2e for less than a dollar. Most people outside of EA would be quite skeptical of this. At least those I talked to thought of this as unrealistic.
Thus, in both cases hiring an expert seems very beneficial.
The remaining question is then: are the benefits of an independent analysis justifying its costs?
I assume that you can hire an expert researcher for less than 100$/hour and that such an analysis would take less than 4 full work weeks. At 40 hours/week the whole thing would cost less than 16.000 $. That seems unrealistically high, but let’s assume it's not.
I’m not sure, but estimating that tens to hundreds of millions of dollars are allocated on the basis of their recommendations, it still seems worth it, doesn’t it?
Am I missing something here?
Now lets assume that (ii) is the case. In that case, for the reasons given above, it would be important to make them public.