Right. 93.1 % of the increase in the welfare of soil animals resulting from increasing cropland comes from decreasing nematode-years. For a welfare per nematode-year 10 % as high, the cost-effectiveness accounting for target beneficiaries and soil animals of donating to HIPF would become 3.28 times the past cost-effectiveness of HSI[1], which is 16.2 % (= 3.28/​20.3) of the ratio I present in the post of 20.3.
If you discounted nematodes >10x or more, then SWP’s HSI would come out ahead, or roughly tied with HIPF, right?
Right. 93.1 % of the increase in the welfare of soil animals resulting from increasing cropland comes from decreasing nematode-years. For a welfare per nematode-year 10 % as high, the cost-effectiveness accounting for target beneficiaries and soil animals of donating to HIPF would become 3.28 times the past cost-effectiveness of HSI[1], which is 16.2 % (= 3.28/​20.3) of the ratio I present in the post of 20.3.
I got this updating this cell to a value 10 % as high.