I’d prefer more investment in exploration and accuracy[1]. I wouldn’t be surprised if GiveWell pursues but doesn’t publish more speculative research of the type you’re mentioning.
I found most of these issues in a couple of hours. I also didn’t have time to publish critiques on all of the issues I found. So I am not quite as reassured as you are, particularly because relatively small changes in these figures can still lead to changes in the allocation of millions of dollars.
I’d prefer more investment in exploration and accuracy[1]. I wouldn’t be surprised if GiveWell pursues but doesn’t publish more speculative research of the type you’re mentioning.
I found most of these issues in a couple of hours. I also didn’t have time to publish critiques on all of the issues I found. So I am not quite as reassured as you are, particularly because relatively small changes in these figures can still lead to changes in the allocation of millions of dollars.
See here for a general argument supporting the cost-effectiveness of funding more research.
I see that they often publish summaries of that kind of research in various places, two random examples:
Malnutrition: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15Q3ww3vmZINDsJ2lGNlwdw3amRiiR_y2mkSkbUf1i-g/edit#gid=1814038446 (from https://blog.givewell.org/2021/11/19/malnutrition-treatment/ )
Family planning radio campaigns: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_k7SBtgCOwMITTyseaz9rzWv3skb7XWts89m8oL6Wb8/edit and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KtjwUbh5za5LKkH2WDe6g8UQ3cOcaRs-dxZgGcvYnDE/edit#gid=18893171 (from their September newsletter)
Thank you Joel. Makes sense. Well done on finding these issues!