Thanks so much to everyone who has engaged with this post! Just wanted to let you know that I had a medical emergency and unfortunately Iām still not feeling myself, so it might be another day or two until I have the headspace to reply to your comments. Thanks for your patience.
Cameron Meyer Shorb šø
Karma: 982
FundĀing priĀoriĀties for Wild AnĀiĀmal IniĀtiĀaĀtive in 2026
[6 of 6] āWhat would make you know itās not working?ā
There are three levels at which you might answer this question:
(1) How would you know if field-building was the wrong strategy?
If AI changes the nature of research so much that academia becomes irrelevant.
This seems the most plausible way our field-building strategy could be wrong, but so far we havenāt found a strategy that seems more robust to the huge uncertainties created by AI. If you have an idea for an alternative strategy that seems reasonably likely to be much more robust than field-building, please let us know, because this is an active area of strategic research for us.
If someone finds a way to reduce suffering for ~trillions of wild animals that doesnāt require more research/ātechnology (either to implement or to evaluate), that can be shown with high confidence to be net-positive even after accounting for effects on non-target species, and that seems likely to shift social norms toward caring explicitly about wild animal welfare over the long run.
If thereās massive social change in favor of wild animal welfareāsomething like the way pollution and habitat destruction rapidly became issues of wide concern in the US between 1962 (when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring) and 1970 (when Richard Nixon founded the Environmental Protection Agency and Gaylord Nelson organized the first Earth Day). If that happened, it would be reasonable to expect an academic field to emerge somewhat organically, the way conservation biology did in the 1980s.
(2) How would you know if WAIās efforts werenāt on track to succeed at field-building?
This is the failure mode we invest the most in monitoring. Weāre tracking a wide range of metrics related to field growth and indicators related to our causal impact. Weāre still building up that system (collecting historical data, deciding which metrics are most relevant, etc.), but we hope to have an easily shareable dashboard sometime early in 2026. For now, I suggest looking at the supporting documents in Animal Charity Evaluatorsā 2025 recommendation of WAI to get a more detailed look at how we approach monitoring and evaluation.
(3) How would you know if the field wasnāt on track to lead to real change for animals?
We think it this will be pretty hard to get data on before the field is more established (i.e., at least another 5 years), because as long as the community is still evolving, its present form isnāt necessarily representative of its long-term state.
For now, weāre looking for positive indications that our priorities are increasingly represented within the field: valuing highly abundant populations/ātaxa, researching invertebrates, considering counterfactuals, being open to human interference in nature, accounting for the possibility of net-negative lives, etc.
Negative signs might include indications that some sort of sub-optimal culture is dominating and self-perpetuating (particularly concerning if the culture represents a relatively small part of society at large, because that would suggest our field is actively selecting for it, rather than failing to filter it out). For example, wildlife management science was heavily populated by hunters and anglers until recently; veterinary medicine is primarily funded by animal ag interests and continues to have a strong pro-farming culture. (I donāt know to what extent these particular trends in academic subcultures exist outside the US.)
[5 of š§µ] Re adding a campaigning arm:
P.S. To shift gears for a moment: if it were up to me, Iād keep WAI primarily a research organisation; but Iād add a small, focused campaigning arm to push for welfare improvements informed by that research.
I donāt want to steal anyoneās thunder, but for now Iāll just say:
I totally agree the movement should have something like this (thought it would be most effective if separate from WAI).
Thereās some really exciting news coming on this front, which will likely be announced within the next week or two. Keep your eyes on the EA Forum!
[4 of 6] āWhat conditions would trigger a move from foundational research to applied work?ā
I really do like arbitrary binaries for things that obviously arenāt that simple (āall models are wrong, but some are usefulā!), but in this particular case I think the binary might actually be too reductive to be useful. Still, Iāll attempt to give a direct answer once Iāve done some quibbling.
First of all, applied work is already happening. There are many things people are doing to wild animals (typically for anthropocentric or biodiversity conservation reasons) that seem quite plausibly helpful for welfare (e.g., continuing to reduce the range of the New World screwworm). The difficulty is in determining whether these these interventions have net-positive effects once indirect effects on non-target species are accounted for. However, that doesnāt mean we shouldnāt do anything for wild animals until weāre absolutely certain about the nature of the impact weāre having. After all, everything that changes human or animal populations (e.g., distributing anti-malarial bednets, reducing factory farming) also has indirect effects on wild animals. So I think itās best to think of applied work not as something that will suddenly become possible, but rather something weāll gradually be able to do more strategically, confidently, and cost-effectively as science progresses.
Secondly, the need for foundational research wonāt necessarily go down for a long time, because answering some foundational questions will make it newly possible to address other foundational questions. Implementing progressively more ambitious interventions will certainly raise plenty of applied questions, which might themselves expose important gaps in foundational knowledge. While I realize this sounds like the classic researcher whose head is so far up their own ass the only words they can still get out are āmore research is needed!ā, my thinking on this is actually more informed by my experience as an animal activist and what Iāve read about the history of the movement. As its focus shifted from pets to lab animals to farmed vertebrates to farmed invertebrates, the animal advocacy movement has repeatedly needed to consult more areas of science to inform its goals and tactics. I donāt have a good sense of how often that raised truly foundational scientific questions, but at least right now the movement is greatly constrained by the lack of basic scientific (and even philosophical!) understanding of the nature of sentience, which seems extremely important to determining which invertebrates fall within the moral circle.
Iām not saying thereās an infinite need for more research. Rather, I think we should acknowledge that research is likely to be a core function of the wild animal advocacy for the foreseeable future, and we shouldnāt expect the need for foundational research to consistently go down as the opportunities for applied work increase.
For Wild Animal Initiativeās part, we plan to continue pursuing both basic and applied research for the foreseeable future, and we hope the amount of resources devoted to that will continue to increase in absolute terms. In relative terms, we hope the proportion of the movementās resources spent on research generally declines over time, as research reveals more and more pathways for applied work. But we think most of that work should be done by other organizations. As a scientific organization that isnāt part of an academic institution, itās essential for us to maintain credible in the eyes of scientists, and tying ourselves to particular campaigns or policies increases the risk that we will be seen as putting āan agendaā ahead of the pursuit of the truth. That risk could be mitigated, so we continue to explore strategies that involve us branching out. Our rule of thumb for now is we want to be involved in applied work when we can clearly position ourselves as scientific advisors to a project others are leading, as weāre currently doing in our collaborations with Conservation X Labs (which will lead the rodent fertility control open innovation challenge, funding permitting) and the NYU WILD Lab (which works at the intersection of wild animal welfare science and municipal policymaking).
Finally, my attempt to answer your question directly: Given the aforebabbledabout fuzziness of the boundary between foundational and applied work, perhaps it would be useful to reformulate the question along these lines: āUnder what conditions would we want the movement to be applying the majority of its resources to choosing and implementing interventions, rather than doing research that isnāt directly targeted at specific interventions?ā
Perhaps those conditions would include:
We have methods to empirically measure welfare within enough precision across a broad enough range of species that we can confidently make habitat-level land management decisions (i.e., is the total wellbeing of all the animals higher in cropland A or cropland B, forest C or forest D, cropland A or forest C, etc.). This isnāt strictly necessary to take action, but it would open up such a huge category of tractable actions that applied work would likely be able to absorb more resources than foundational work.
Within wild animal welfare science and adjacent academic communities, there is a common understanding of welfare as something that is distinct from biodiversity, naturalness, economic value, or other values traditionally pursued by conservationists and other land managers. This would represent a major milestone on the path to a society that understands and values wild animal welfare enough for welfare to be a common consideration in policy discussions (similar to how ideas like biodiversity, carbon sequestration, or environmental justice factor into policy discussions now: rarely the single highest priority, but widely understood and treated as good things to advance when possible). Again, this isnāt necessary to take action, but the more widely welfare is understood and valued, the more likely it is that efforts to improve wild animal welfare will have positive long-term effects on social norms, which makes it more worthwhile to take action even if the short-term effects are uncertain.
Stream-of-consciousness meta commentary I jotted down before writing my actual replies:
Can I just say: Hell fuckinā yeah, letās fuckinā go, I fuckinā love EA. This is the noblest possible use of the EA Forum: Bluntly calling people on their shit in a way that is not just polite but also deeply compassionate and clearly in good faith. Iām just so glad that my life path took me into a community that works together with this particular cocktail of conflict and collaboration. I love you guys :ā)
[3 of 6] āWhen does WAI expect to produce its first real-world intervention or policy shift e.g. is there anything concrete expected this decade?ā
Mandatory annoying disclaimer: For the reasons discussed in my preceding comment, I donāt think ātime till first intervention implementationā is a useful proxy for the pace of field growth or the fidelity of its trajectory.
But to answer your question:
First past the post: Backyard bird habitat improvements in 1-2 years
WAI funded Ross MacLeod and colleagues to validate the use of eye temperature (assessed via thermal imaging) as an indicator of the welfare of several common bird species. If they find the metric to be usable as hypothesized, they can draw on over ten years of data theyāve collected from 54 backyard-like sites constructed to manipulate variables like bird feeder location, fencing presence/āabsence, and hedge species. If they find significant differences, Ross plans to use his longstanding relationships with the RSPCA and other UK bird groups to disseminate the first ever guidance on how bird lovers can set up their gardens to be more subjectively enjoyable for the birds that visit them.
Clearly this isnāt the most pressing issue facing wild animals, but happens to be on track to be the first of many cases where WAI-funded research identifies ways people can improve wild animal welfare by making simple changes to existing activities.
First high-confidence scalable intervention: Rodent fertility control in 4-7 years
Replacing anticoagulant rodenticides with oral contraceptives would remove a widespread source of intense, prolonged suffering. Because this would be modifying existing population management practices rather than changing an ecosystem in a novel way, fertility control offers an unusually convenient opportunity to reduce the suffering of a target population with minimal likelihood of affecting non-target populations.
Unfortunately, existing products have attracted more hype than the research supports, which has led to repeated failures of pilot projects launched by groups unaware of this track record.But because these compounds work in lab settings, there is strong reason to believe that an effective rodent contraceptive product can be developed (or that existing products could be made effective by following different application methodologies).
WAI has partnered with Conservation X Labs and the Botstiber Institute for Wildlife Fertility Control to outline a process for running a research competition that would incentivize private R&D labs to close crucial knowledge gaps and develop a demonstrably effective product. If funding allows, weāll launch this process in summer 2026. It will take at least a year or two to run the research competition, and likely several more years to get a new product to market.
Once an effective solution is commercially available, it can be applied at larger and larger scales as it is adopted across more cities, farms, factories, and conservation efforts (invasive rodents are a major threat to rare species on remote islands).
[2 of 6] Why hasnāt WAI implemented interventions yet?
In short: Because thatās not what weāve been trying to do.
If we had been spending the last six years trying to find interventions that could be implemented as soon as possible, and our progress to date is all we had to show for it, then that would be extremely disappointing. If thatās what weād been aiming for and this is where we landed, then I think itād be fair to say we failed ā or at the very least, we definitely shouldnāt be an ACE-recommended charity.
What we have been doing instead is pursuing a strategy that is entirely focused on building wild animal welfare science up into a self-sustaining academic field that is positioned to produce the research needed to reduce wild animal suffering as much as possible over the long run.
Iām glad you brought up Rethink Priorities and Happier Lives Institute, because I think the contrast between us is very illustrative. Like most EA research orgs, RP and HLI mostly conduct research with the aim of directly informing policymaking, philanthropy, or movement strategy. Although the particular topics theyāre focusing on are highly neglected, those topics are often close enough to longstanding human concerns (e.g., public health, agricultural productivity) that they can build on the deep bodies of literature that have been developed by mature academic fields (e.g., development economics, human psychology, farm animal veterinary medicine).
Wild animal welfare science is at best several decades behind those fields. The problem is not that potential interventions havenāt been evaluated yet; itās that we lack the basic scientific knowledge of how to evaluate most interventions. The few interventions we can evaluate with confidence are evaluable precisely because they have very limited impacts or only work under a narrow set of conditions.
Thatās why we have optimized for field-building over intervention research: not because there are no interventions worth trying now, but because thereās a very low ceiling to how much impact you can have before you know how to measure welfare across different several classes and phyla, how to account for compensatory mortality, how to predict and monitor for effects on non-target species, etc.
Which is not to say we have done no research on interventions. Rather, we have chosen to research interventions insofar as we think it will contribute to field growth, such as by attracting interest and funding, providing opportunities to refine research methodologies, building bridges with relevant research communities, or simply serving as a proof of concept for the field.
[1 of 6]
Hi Siobhan! Thanks so much for sharing your concerns and giving us a chance to explain our work!
Iām embarrassed to say I failed to find a brief way to answer your questions, so youāll have to forgive my lengthy staggered replies. Iāve posted them in separate comments to allow for discussion to proceed in different directions across separate threads.
Thanks for calling that out, Nitin! I was worried my succinctness wasnāt giving them enough credit.
Iāve met several of your colleagues, and itās clear theyāre not pawns in your game. They are mission-driven people who are unusually clear-eyed about what they value, unusually ambitious about doing good, and unusually creative about how to do it. That seems to be a big part of why theyāre taking steps most conservation orgs havenāt: they understand that responding to existential threats with appropriate urgency doesnāt rule out doing good in other ways (and that a tunnel-vision approach could actually make them less effective at achieving their top priority).
At the same time, I want to make sure weāre giving due credit to the huge number of other conservationists who care about animal welfare, yet donāt see those values reflected in the policies and priorities of their organizations (as you mention in your Science paper linked above; full text here). And to your CXL colleagues before you joined! Itās not that some people care about welfare and others donāt; itās that institutional change requires more than good intentions. You also need someone to start conversations, make people feel psychologically safe enough to consider changing their minds, contribute domain expertise, and find where the levers of change are (at both the individual and organizational level). Oh, and the person doing that needs to be good at itāplenty have tried and failed, and not for lack of passion.
Hereās a link to the full text of Nitin and Derekās paper, from this part of Nitinās post:
I worked for five years as WWF Indiaās national lead for elephant conservation, but I have also been active in wild animal welfare, publishing arguably the highest-profile peer-reviewed article on animal welfare in conservation and incorporating animal welfare into elephant conservation policy.
I think itās worth noting that Nitin did win a grant from the EA Animal Welfare Fund last year, but ended up turning it down to work at CXL (where he seemed likely to have a bigger impact, which seems to have been true).
Iām the executive director of @Wild_Animal_Initiative (WAI), one of CXLās partners on this project, so I just wanted to weigh in to underscore how important this project is and how well-qualified Nitin is to lead it.
Rodent fertility control
Rodent fertility control is the near-term intervention we are most excited about, by far. In large part thatās because it advances progress on several levels at once:
Directly reducing human-caused harm (i.e., slow, painful deaths by anticoagulant rodenticides) in the short term (i.e., starting in 1-7 years) at fairly large scales relative to other wild animal animal welfare interventions (i.e., hundreds of thousands to tens of millions a year, possibly much more once non-target species are accounted for).
Growing the coalition of people, organizations, movements, and sectors involved in wild animal welfare work. In contrast to the edgelord thought experiments that originally popularized the idea of wild animal welfare within EA, rodent fertility control sits at an unusually convenient intersection of wild animal welfare (less rat torture), biodiversity conservation (fewer species literally going the way of the dodo), agriculture/āmanufacturing/āfood safety (fewer rats on farms, in factories, etc.), and human quality of life (fewer rats where people donāt want them). Thatās helpful both for increasing the resources available to wild animal welfare work, and for shifting social norms toward caring more about wild animal welfare.
Opening windows for policy work on wild animal welfare. Developing/āvalidating an effective humane means of rodent fertility control would open up many angles for wild animal welfare advocates to make concrete, practical, non-controversial asks of policymakers. This would not only help scale up rodent fertility control, but it would help build out the policy arm of our movement, putting us in a better position to implement even larger-scale, lower-cost solutions as wild animal welfare science progresses.
Pioneering a broadly applicable wildlife management strategy. Advancing rodent fertility control could lead to advancements in fertility control for other species as well, which would broaden the eventual impact of this work. Fertility control is not only promising for reducing lethal control. It could also be used to benefit more-wild populations that are currently being limited by intraspecific competition for food or other resources. Or it could be paired with wild animal welfare interventions that reduce mortality (e.g., oral rabies vaccination programs) so that reducing mortality doesnāt lead to population growth that could have negative effects on other populations.
Nitin
I would like to just briefly affirm thatāwhile one of the many lovely things about the EA Forum is that any olā schmuck can walk in and contribute to the marketplace of ideasāNitin isnāt any olā schmuck.
In the six years WAI has spent looking for natural scientists open to working on wild animal welfare, Nitin stands out as one of the fieldās most promising champions yet. Since we first met in 2020 (when he and @Derek Shiller published their article in Science), itās been clear that heās deeply committed to anti-speciesist ethics and fascinated by the complexity of the ecological questions that raises.
On paper, Nitin seems like the perfect person to start welfare discussions in conservation spaces. In practice, heās so good at it that he does it almost accidentally. This whole CXL-WAI-BIWFC collaboration grew out of a conversation he had with CXL colleagues at lunch one day. He brought up rodenticidesāhow much suffering they cause, how many native species they kill along the wayāand before he knew it, he was talking to leadership about whether this is something they would really want the org to do. (At least, thatās my memory of how Nitin explained it to us when he reached out, with so much pleasant surprise he was almost apologetic, to notify us that our dreams of a rodent fertility control project might come to fruition much sooner than weād expected.) Less accidentally, but more verifiably: He also started discussions at CXL that led to them adopting a plant-based food policy for the organizationāa quicker pivot than even some animal advocacy organizations have been able to pull off.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, heās great to work with. Heās the kind of person who makes you feel interesting when you talk to him, even though youāre the one walking away learning more. Heās a strong writer, a clear thinker, a creative ideator, and a prompt emailer. Good ideas live or die by the talent of the people executing them, and Nitinās got the chops to make good on donorsā investments in this project.
If you have any questions about Wild Animal Initiativeās perspective on this issue or this project, please donāt hesitate to reply here or email me at cameronms@wildanimalinitiative.org.
I like that you estimated the cost-effectiveness, but I do not think it illustrates āanimal welfare science could lead to the development of large-scale, highly cost-effective interventionsā
I was worried I didnāt articulate this claim clearly enough in the original post, so I appreciate you giving me the chance to clarify!
I did not mean to say āThis is highly cost-effective relative to other animal welfare interventionsā or āThis is about how cost-effective I expect wild animal welfare interventions to be.ā
I was aiming for something more like: āI donāt think itās crazy to think we could develop highly cost-effective wild animal welfare interventions, because hereās an example of a program that wasnāt even optimized for wild animal welfare but still seemed to be doing likely-good things fairly affordably.ā
Wild Animal Initiativeās whole deal is advancing research that we think will lead to interventions that are orders of magnitude more scalable and more cost-effective than whatās possible now. Some people seem to think thatās hopeless, in part because it seems so far beyond what we can imagine now. We disagree. The goal of this post wasnāt to provide definitive proof for every part of that argument, but rather to provide an empirical reality check. Given how early we are in the history of wild animal welfare science, I think itās a pretty encouraging sign that weāre already doing plausibly-helpful things that are within a few orders of magnitude of competitive cost-effectiveness.
[P.S. Still planning to reply to your point about soil animals, but ran out of time today.]
Such a great question! If we were to do a more rigorous cost-effectiveness evaluation, this would be one of the first things weād try to add to the model.
As is too often the case with cause-specific mortality, we couldnāt find any great data on this. But based on our quick read of the literature and our general knowledge of natural history, @Simon Eckerstrƶm Liedholm and I think the leading candidates for counterfactual causes of raccoon death might be:
hunting and trapping (see, e.g., this study of raccoons in central Mississippi)
vehicle collisions
predation (by, e.g., coyotes, dogs, great-horned owls)
other diseases (e.g. canine distemper virus)
starvation
extreme weather and accidents (e.g. falling out of trees)
Thereās even less research on the relative amounts of suffering from different causes of death, but rabies is a pretty good candidate for one of the worst deaths out there, because it causes extreme suffering over several days. (Itās tragically convenient that humans die of rabies and exhibit similar symptoms, so we can back up our guesses with first-hand reports and observations of behavior in a species we know well.) Canine distemper might be worse, because it also causes intense suffering but can last for weeks.
But most of the likely most common causes of raccoon deaths act much more quickly (some almost instantaneously), it seems like a pretty safe bet that rabies is substantially worse than most other raccoon deaths.
VacĀciĀnatĀing racĀcoons against raĀbies: A case study in the poĀtenĀtial cost-effecĀtiveĀness of wild anĀiĀmal welfare interventions
Thank you for this important post!
Iād like to add that another important aspect of frog welfare is the welfare of frogs living in the wild, of which there might be something like hundreds of billions[1] to hundreds of trillions[2].[3]
I think the most tractable way to improve the welfare of as many wild frogs as soon as possible is to invest in efforts to establish the foundations of wild animal welfare science, explore avenues for translating wild animal welfare science into real-world policy change, and build grassroots support for such policies. Relevant orgs include:
Wild Animal Initiative (where I work)
NYUās Wild Animal Welfare Program, including their newly launched WILD Lab
[1] Whatās a few Humanitiesā worth of minds, between friends?
[2] Time flies when youāre counting seconds for hundreds of millennia!
[3] These estimates come from taking the total amphibian population estimates from Tomasik (2009) and Bar-On, Phillips, and Milo (2018) (Supplementary Material, page 39) and dividing them by 10. I donāt know if thatās reasonableāI just know there are way more salamanders out there than youād think. My guess is itās conservative, i.e., that frogs account for more than 10% of amphibians.
You make a great point about the parallel to the meat-eater problem, and I agree that, for similar reasons, itās probably still a good idea to advocate for chicken welfare reforms.
However, I donāt think reductio ad absurdum is a compelling argument in this case.
This postās argument seems absurd not because it leads to some kind of internal contradiction, but rather because it argues for something thatās way outside the things people normally think are good ideas. I donāt think āseems absurd to most peopleā is a reliable indicator of āis not ethically sound,ā because I think many people believe things and act in ways that are not morally sound (e.g., factory farming). What I love about EA is that itās a social space that encourages questioning of conventional ideas.
Thanks so much for this thoughtful post, Vasco! It is so heartening to see people taking arthropod welfare seriously.
While I agree that chicken welfare reforms could plausibly harm arthropods more than they help chickens, I donāt think that means we shouldnāt support chicken welfare reforms. For the same reason I reject the meat-eater problem, the logic of the larder, and the logic of the logger, I think that to get to a society that maximizes utility over the long term, we will probably need to take some steps that decrease utility in the short term.
That is, I donāt know exactly what global-scale arthropod welfare programs would look like, but I think weāre more likely to get there if more people live in material abundance, so I think economic development is worthwhile even if it increases factory farming in the short term. I think reforming, regulating, and banning factory farming are also very likely to be helpful (and possibly necessary) for human society to normalize and institutionalize concern for non-human animals, and to invest substantial resources in helping them.
I realize this is a suspiciously convenient conclusion to come to, and I canāt rule out the possibility that my position is driven by motivated reasoning. But I think itās a good sign that my claim (āChicken welfare reforms might be good overall, even if they hurt arthropods in the short termā) uses a similar logic to yours (āChicken welfare reforms might be bad overall, even if they help chickens directlyā). Both are examples of finding a different conclusion as a result of changing the scope of the analysis: Should our calculations include just chickens directly affected, or also arthropods indirectly affected, or also farmed and wild animals very-indirectly affected?
Of course one could agree with me that we should include the very-indirectly-affected animals, but disagree with my guesses about what would be best for them. One of the biggest weaknesses of my approach is that itās much harder to judge what kinds of are worthwhile, or to compare effectiveness across efforts. It also takes things further from ecology and more into social movement theory, which is annoying because I enjoy the former a lot more than the latter.
But that doesnāt mean we should abandon empiricism and settle for hand-waviness in everything. Analyses like yours can be very useful; I just think we should interpret their results in the context of explicit theories of change about long-term effects.
- What to do about near-term clueĀlessĀness in anĀiĀmal welfare by (8 Oct 2025 20:56 UTC; 79 points)
- 's comment on Chicken welfare reĀforms may be benefiĀcial or harmĀful acĀcountĀing for effects on wild arthroĀpods? by (12 May 2025 12:42 UTC; 10 points)
- 's comment on Chicken welfare reĀforms may be benefiĀcial or harmĀful acĀcountĀing for effects on wild arthroĀpods? by (12 May 2025 14:39 UTC; 5 points)
- 's comment on SenĀtienĀtia, RevĀerĀsomeĀlas, and the Small AnĀiĀmal ReĀplaceĀment Problem by (21 May 2025 8:03 UTC; 2 points)
Thanks Siobhan!
Iām looking forward to continuing the conversation soon, but unfortunately I had a medical emergency and Iām still not feeling myself, so it might be another day or two until I have the headspace to reply to your comments. Thanks for your patience.
CC @Vasco Grilošø