Thank you for your work on this.
I’d be interested in your opinion on the number of people who should be working on this.
I appreciate that this isn’t a straightforward question to answer. The truth is probably that returns diminish as the number of people working on this increase, and there probably isn’t an obvious way to delineate a clear cut off point between “still useful to have another person” and “don’t need any more people”.
I think this useful because I suspect your view is that there should be lots more people working on this, but from reading the problem profile, I don’t think readers would know whether 80k would want the 400 to increase to 500 or 500,000. (I’ve only skimmed it, so sorry if it is explained)
Knowing the difference between “the area is somewhat under-resourced” and “the area is extremely under-resourced” is useful for readers.
I think this can be a useful concept, so thanks for sharing.
I think this post could be usefully expanded on in the following ways:
a bit more detail (vignettes, also, if possible, clear definitions) about what makes a decision important and influencable
what would we have to forecast in order to adjust our credences about whether a crunch time is coming soon