I agree that they applicants can and will compute the ex-ante probabilities in this way. But what I’m suggesting is that the grantmakers could share probabilities informed by the granters’
own internal discussions of priority areas and of the grant applications as as well as as, interim grant decisions (who have they already decided to fund).
The grant makers might reasonably be reluctant to share that internal discussion, but might be willing to share estimated probabilities implied by these.
I suspect there’s a lot of this private information that the applicants are unaware of.
Similarly for “which part of the applicants case are granters is already convinced by in which part needs more justification” — I suspect that applicants has major blindspots, and a tiny bit of hints and steering could help a lot
I agree that they applicants can and will compute the ex-ante probabilities in this way. But what I’m suggesting is that the grantmakers could share probabilities informed by the granters’ own internal discussions of priority areas and of the grant applications as as well as as, interim grant decisions (who have they already decided to fund).
The grant makers might reasonably be reluctant to share that internal discussion, but might be willing to share estimated probabilities implied by these.
I suspect there’s a lot of this private information that the applicants are unaware of.
Similarly for “which part of the applicants case are granters is already convinced by in which part needs more justification” — I suspect that applicants has major blindspots, and a tiny bit of hints and steering could help a lot