Thanks Jeff, I think your summary is helpful and broadly correct, except for two (somewhat relevant) details:
GWWC didnât recommend SM based on FPâs recommendation in 2019 but based on FPâs decision to still recommend SM as of this giving season (which is based on FPâs internal re-evaluation of SM).
I donât expect there to be any new, decision-relevant information in FPâs recent internal re-evaluation that isnât captured by the 2019 report + the recent HLI analysis (but Iâm not sure about thisâMatt can correct me if Iâm wrong, though also see his comment here). Obviously the internal re-evaluation has extra âinformationâ in the sense that FP has reviewed the HLI analysis, converted metrics to their new system, and run some extra tests, as Matt has explained, so maybe this is just semantics, but I think itâs relevant to the extent that a crux would be âFP is still recommending SM because of something only they knowâ.
I understand the reasons for your suggestion w.r.t. GWWCâs inclusion criteriaâweâve seriously considered doing this beforeâbut I explain at length why I still think we shouldnât under (4) here. Would welcome any further comments if you disagree!
Thanks Jeff, I think your summary is helpful and broadly correct, except for two (somewhat relevant) details:
GWWC didnât recommend SM based on FPâs recommendation in 2019 but based on FPâs decision to still recommend SM as of this giving season (which is based on FPâs internal re-evaluation of SM).
I donât expect there to be any new, decision-relevant information in FPâs recent internal re-evaluation that isnât captured by the 2019 report + the recent HLI analysis (but Iâm not sure about thisâMatt can correct me if Iâm wrong, though also see his comment here). Obviously the internal re-evaluation has extra âinformationâ in the sense that FP has reviewed the HLI analysis, converted metrics to their new system, and run some extra tests, as Matt has explained, so maybe this is just semantics, but I think itâs relevant to the extent that a crux would be âFP is still recommending SM because of something only they knowâ.
I understand the reasons for your suggestion w.r.t. GWWCâs inclusion criteriaâweâve seriously considered doing this beforeâbut I explain at length why I still think we shouldnât under (4) here. Would welcome any further comments if you disagree!
Responded above, thanks!