This doesn’t obviously point in the direction of relatively and absolutely fewer small grants, though. Like naively it would shrink and/or shift the distribution to the left—not reshape it.
I don’t understand why you think this is the case. If you think of the “distribution of grants given” as a sum of multiple different distributions (e.g. upskilling, events, and funding programmes) of significantly varying importance across cause areas, then more or less dropping the first two would give your overall distribution a very different shape.
This doesn’t obviously point in the direction of relatively and absolutely fewer small grants, though. Like naively it would shrink and/or shift the distribution to the left—not reshape it.
I don’t understand why you think this is the case. If you think of the “distribution of grants given” as a sum of multiple different distributions (e.g. upskilling, events, and funding programmes) of significantly varying importance across cause areas, then more or less dropping the first two would give your overall distribution a very different shape.
Yeah you’re right, not sure what I missed on the first read