The phrasing ādonāt consider themselves to be part of the EA movement or engaged in EA movement-buildingā is ambiguous on whether both are true. If they mean it in the sense that ānot all are bothā then, for example, the claim that LV, WA, and GAI are not engaged in EA community building, and GAI is additionally not part of the EA movement would be consistent with your EV quotations.
Are we saying that LV is not engaged-in-EA-community-building and also not part-of-the-EA-movement, and also WA is not engaged-in-EA-community-building and also not part-of-the-EA-movement, and also GAI is not engaged-in-EA-community-building and also not part-of-the-EA-movement...or that for each project one or both apply (so that, say, LV could be part-of-the-EA-movement but not engaged-in-EA-community-building).
The phrasing ādonāt consider themselves to be part of the EA movement or engaged in EA movement-buildingā is ambiguous on whether both are true. If they mean it in the sense that ānot all are bothā then, for example, the claim that LV, WA, and GAI are not engaged in EA community building, and GAI is additionally not part of the EA movement would be consistent with your EV quotations.
I didnāt find it ambiguous. I interpreted it as ānot (A or B)ā, which is the same as āneither A nor Bā, and ānot A and not Bā.
Not for multiple X.
Are we saying that LV is not engaged-in-EA-community-building and also not part-of-the-EA-movement, and also WA is not engaged-in-EA-community-building and also not part-of-the-EA-movement, and also GAI is not engaged-in-EA-community-building and also not part-of-the-EA-movement...or that for each project one or both apply (so that, say, LV could be part-of-the-EA-movement but not engaged-in-EA-community-building).