I agree with you that it’s important to account for hiring being very expensive.
My view on more transparency is that its main benefit (which I don’t think OP mentions) is as a long-term safeguard to reduce poor but well intentioned reasoning, mistakes and nepotism around grant processes, and is likely to be worth hiring costs even if we don’t expect to identify ongoing harms.
In other words, I think the stronger case for EA grantmakers being more transparent is the potential for transparency to reduce future harms, rather than its potential to reveal possible ongoing harms.
I agree with you that it’s important to account for hiring being very expensive.
My view on more transparency is that its main benefit (which I don’t think OP mentions) is as a long-term safeguard to reduce poor but well intentioned reasoning, mistakes and nepotism around grant processes, and is likely to be worth hiring costs even if we don’t expect to identify ongoing harms.
In other words, I think the stronger case for EA grantmakers being more transparent is the potential for transparency to reduce future harms, rather than its potential to reveal possible ongoing harms.