We think it’s reasonable to support both a charity that we are more certain is highly cost-effective (such as ÇHKD) as well as one that we are more uncertain is extremely cost-effective (such as Sinergia).
Your CEAs suggest the cost-effectiveness of ÇHKD is slightly more uncertain than that of Sinergia, which is in tension with the above. Your upper bound for the cost-effectiveness of:
Sinergia is 9.45 (= 2.05*10^3/217) times your lower bound.
In addition, your lower bound for the cost-effectiveness of Sinergia is 1.87 (= 217⁄116) times your upper bound for the cost-effectiveness of ÇHKD, which again points towards only Sinergia being recommended.
Your CEAs suggest the cost-effectiveness of ÇHKD is slightly more uncertain than that of Sinergia, which is in tension with the above. Your upper bound for the cost-effectiveness of:
ÇHKD is 18.1 (= 116⁄6.4) times your lower bound.
Sinergia is 9.45 (= 2.05*10^3/217) times your lower bound.
In addition, your lower bound for the cost-effectiveness of Sinergia is 1.87 (= 217⁄116) times your upper bound for the cost-effectiveness of ÇHKD, which again points towards only Sinergia being recommended.