As I tried to clarify above, this is not a case of secret info having muchâif anyâbearing on a recommendation. As far as Iâm aware, nearly all decision-relevant information is and has been available publicly, and where it isnât Matt has already begun clarifying things and has offered to provide more context next week (see discussion between him and Simon above). I certainly canât think of any secret info that is influencing GWWCâs decision here.
FWIW my personal forecast wouldnât be very far from the current market forecast (probably closer to 30%), not because I think the current recommendation decision is wrong but for a variety of reasons, incl. StrongMindsâ funding gaps being filled to a certain extent by 2025; new data from the abovementioned RCT; the research community finding even better funding opportunities etc.
Iâm fine with the wording: itâs technically âtop-rated charityâ currently but both naming and system may change over the coming years, as weâll hopefully be ramping up research efforts.
Hmmmm this still feels like a bit of a dodge. If the work is all public, what specific thing has Simon missed or misunderstood or what are you going to change? Letâs give it two weeks, but if there is no secret info there ought to be an answer to that question.
Also, what do you expect the results of the RCT to be? And if you think they will be negative shouldnât you remove the recommendation now?
Hi Nathan, I donât think the results of the RCT will be negative, just that they could cause us to update (in either direction) which adds uncertainty, though Iâd admit that at a <50% forecast this could plausibly increase my forecast rather than lower it (though this isnât immediately clear; depends on the interactions with the other reasons).
And I hope the more elaborate reply I just wrote to Simon answers your remaining question.
As I tried to clarify above, this is not a case of secret info having muchâif anyâbearing on a recommendation. As far as Iâm aware, nearly all decision-relevant information is and has been available publicly, and where it isnât Matt has already begun clarifying things and has offered to provide more context next week (see discussion between him and Simon above). I certainly canât think of any secret info that is influencing GWWCâs decision here.
FWIW my personal forecast wouldnât be very far from the current market forecast (probably closer to 30%), not because I think the current recommendation decision is wrong but for a variety of reasons, incl. StrongMindsâ funding gaps being filled to a certain extent by 2025; new data from the abovementioned RCT; the research community finding even better funding opportunities etc.
Iâm fine with the wording: itâs technically âtop-rated charityâ currently but both naming and system may change over the coming years, as weâll hopefully be ramping up research efforts.
Hmmmm this still feels like a bit of a dodge. If the work is all public, what specific thing has Simon missed or misunderstood or what are you going to change? Letâs give it two weeks, but if there is no secret info there ought to be an answer to that question.
Also, what do you expect the results of the RCT to be? And if you think they will be negative shouldnât you remove the recommendation now?
Props for engaging here.
Hi Nathan, I donât think the results of the RCT will be negative, just that they could cause us to update (in either direction) which adds uncertainty, though Iâd admit that at a <50% forecast this could plausibly increase my forecast rather than lower it (though this isnât immediately clear; depends on the interactions with the other reasons).
And I hope the more elaborate reply I just wrote to Simon answers your remaining question.