I’m not very familiar with the funds, but wouldn’t retrospective evaluations like Linch‘s be more useful than legible reasoning? I feel like the grantees and institutions like EA funds with sufficiently long horizons want to stay trusted actors in the longer run and so are sufficiently motivated to be trusted with some more inside-view decisions.
trust from donors can still be gained by explaining a meaningful fraction of decisions
less legible bets may have higher EV
I imagine funders will always be able to meaningfully explain at least some factors that informed them, even if some factors are hard to communicate
some donors may still not trust judgement sufficiently
maybe funded projects have measurable outcomes only far in the future (though probably there are useful proxies on the way)
evaluation of funded projects takes effort (but I imagine you want to do this anyway)
Re: Accountability
I’m not very familiar with the funds, but wouldn’t retrospective evaluations like Linch‘s be more useful than legible reasoning? I feel like the grantees and institutions like EA funds with sufficiently long horizons want to stay trusted actors in the longer run and so are sufficiently motivated to be trusted with some more inside-view decisions.
trust from donors can still be gained by explaining a meaningful fraction of decisions
less legible bets may have higher EV
I imagine funders will always be able to meaningfully explain at least some factors that informed them, even if some factors are hard to communicate
some donors may still not trust judgement sufficiently
maybe funded projects have measurable outcomes only far in the future (though probably there are useful proxies on the way)
evaluation of funded projects takes effort (but I imagine you want to do this anyway)