Problem over solution.

The foundation performs one operation. It divides. The rest of this page is how we check whether the division is possible at all — and what we turn down when it is not.

One operation.

The division sign is not decoration on the name. It describes what we do to a subject before deciding whether there is a project in it.

Above the bar sits the problem — but only where someone other than us has written it down and dated it. Below sits the answer — but only if it already exists somewhere: in a statute, a regulation, a guideline, a judgment. If either side is missing there is no division, and no project.

We do not invent policy and we do not propose what the law should say. The distance between the two sides — between what has been decided and what reaches the person — is the only place a website does any work.

The test a project passes before it exists.

Six conditions. An idea that fails one of them is not deferred. It is dropped.

1. The problem is documented by someone who is not us. Another organisation’s report, a court judgment, official statistics. If we are the only source, the subject is not ready.
2. An answer already exists — in a statute, a regulation, a guideline or a judgment. If it still has to be invented, that is work for a legislature, not for us.
3. The answer is genuinely out of reach for the person who needs it, and we can say exactly why: language, dispersal, staleness or cost. “People don’t know” is not a reason. “The text is in Bulgarian only, split across three instruments, and was last amended a month ago” is a reason.
4. Nobody is doing it well enough already. Checked, not assumed — which means sitting down and reading what others publish, institutions included, before claiming they do not.
5. It can be maintained by very few people, indefinitely. An abandoned reference site is worse than none: it looks exactly as confident on the day it stops being true.
6. Every page can carry a date and a source. If the subject will not allow that, we do not allow the subject.

What a documented gap looks like.

This is what “documented by someone else” means in practice. None of the figures below are ours, and each comes with its limits — the limits are part of the figure, not a footnote to it.

The other project deals with administration rather than attitudes, and there the gaps are counted in documents.

The last of those is the kind of gap a website can close: the rule is published, the deadline is three months, the amount is fixed — and it is learned late, because it is written nowhere in plain language where the person will look. UNHCR describes the case next door: the card Bulgaria issues to temporary protection holders is not an identity document under Bulgarian law. Residence is lawful; the document is not one a bank or an office must accept.

Why “rarely” is a method, not an excuse.

Two projects in a year. That is not a backlog we intend to clear.

The test rejects more than it accepts. What gets dropped:

• Subjects where the answer does not exist yet. In Koilova and Babulkova v. Bulgaria (2023) the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 because the state provides no legal framework recognising same-sex couples. The judgment does not require marriage — it requires a framework of recognition, which the state may design. Three years on there is none. The gap is documented and serious, and that is precisely why it is not ours: it needs a law, not a website.
• Subjects someone already covers well. Duplication looks like activity and is not.
• Campaigns, positions and responses to the news. They go stale in a week and leave behind pages nobody maintains.
• Anything that needs permanent staff to keep from becoming untrue.
• Anything we cannot date.

Why every page carries a date and a source.

An undated reference page is not merely unhelpful. It is dangerous.

A real example, not a hypothetical one. Until 30 July 2026 it was true that temporary protection in the EU ran to 4 March 2027. That day the Council extended it to 4 March 2028. An undated page still printing 2027 reads as confidently today as it did yesterday, and is now wrong. The reader cannot tell the two apart.

So on ukraine.bg this is not an editorial rule but a build gate: a page without a verified date and sources does not compile. Not compiling means not deploying. The rule holds because it cannot be forgotten — not because someone remembers it.

What would make us close a project.

The fourth condition is not checked once. If someone else — an institution, an organisation, a newsroom — starts covering the same gap and covers it better, the project has finished its work.

The correct response is then to stop and say so: the pages stay as a dated archive, a note at the top points to what replaces them, and nothing new is added. A foundation that keeps a project running in order to keep existing no longer passes the test it wrote itself.

The same measure applies to us. Фондация „ДОМ“ is in registration. The intended form — public-benefit — obliges an organisation to publish an annual report and financial statement in the public register by 30 September of the following year, with details of the donations it received and who gave them. That is not a burden. It is the same test, pointed the other way.