Claude: Resources page shortening suggestions:

1. Remove duplicate tool cards — the Dashboard + Learn page cards are identical to what's on the About page. Replace with a compact one-liner: 'Interactive tools: Dashboard · How CM is Made · TEA Comparison · Technical Docs'

2. Add TEA Comparison link — the new compare.html page systematically compares Pasitka, Humbird, CE Delft, GFI, and Goodwin. This is directly relevant to the reading list context.

3. Keep the Shared Reading Collection — it serves a unique purpose (downloadable PDFs) not available elsewhere.

4. Keep the PQ Database section — it's the canonical link set.

Claude: Workshop page shortening suggestions:

1. Remove the 'Suggested Reading' fold (lines 103-124) — this duplicates the reading list on resources.html. Replace with: 'See our Resources page for suggested reading and key papers.'

2. Tighten crux card descriptions — now that the dashboard has a dedicated TEA Comparison page, the crux cards can be 1-2 sentences shorter. Link to compare.html for detail.

3. Add compare.qmd to the tool cards alongside Dashboard and Learn page.

Estimated savings: ~40 lines, plus reduced reader burden from not seeing the same reading list twice.

Claude: Suggest moving this entire discussion to the workshop site. This is a workshop-specific topic about how to frame CM_01, not dashboard educational content.

Replace with a one-line link: 'Regulatory implications for growth factor costs and how they affect CM_01 framing are discussed at our workshop site.'

Same applies to the 'Which market?' section further down. Together these save ~40 visible lines and reduce cross-site duplication.

Claude: Suggest collapsing this entire FBS subsection into a single fold titled 'Historical note: Why the industry moved to serum-free media.'

One visible sentence: 'All commercial cultured meat uses serum-free media — here's why the industry moved away from fetal bovine serum.'

The detailed explanation (what FBS is, why it can't scale, ethical issues) is educational but no longer reflects current practice. Nobody uses FBS. Folding saves ~25 visible lines and keeps the page focused on current cost drivers.

Claude: Content trimming plan for this page (1,147 lines → ~700 target)

Proposed changes in priority order: 1. Fold FBS/serum-free section — historical context, no longer reflects current practice. One visible sentence + collapsed detail. 2. Move jurisdiction & 'Which market?' discussions to workshop — these are workshop topics, not dashboard content. Replace with one-line links. 3. Fold GF signaling diagram — educational but not cost-relevant. Keep the price/solutions tables visible. 4. Bold audit — reduce bold to headings + key numbers only (addresses multiple reviewer comments). 5. Trim Further Resources — link to workshop resources page for full list. 6. CSS fixes — larger diagrams, less whitespace around SVGs.

Optional: fold 2-3 SVG diagrams (cell banking, seed train) to reduce scroll length — the text already explains these steps.

Full plan at .private/content_trimming_plan.md. Feedback welcome here or in chat.

not bold. Too much bold in general

how is that 'optimistic?'

Note -- I want direct quotes from original sources (in tooltips) for important quant claims

K: scaffolding may not be a cost-effective option, low cell densities

this should be specified somewhat by field

Also: Let users choose their own weights with sliders as well

is it a 'strong data set' etc

How do we prefer stated preference here? I think revealed preference and real choices are more credible

how literally is it using these 'standards' ? This bears some more expansion

caveat this if it's a conference paper

Make this more prominent.

add a category -- 'methodological and theoretical/technical issues to be evaluated ... rate 'evaluability'

provide tooltip quotes to check for hallucination

Not bold, avoid bold.

I don't think this is for pure cell mass, this is for a hybrid product

no "!"

Where is this used? I mostly see the earlier sources mentioned above.

The diagram is still too small. Make it bigger, please

not bold

can you have columns with the cost/kg of output for each of these, at each of the prices

keep this prominent (out of fold)

too much white space before and after image

give a tldr and the rest should be a folding box

Is that still true?! Source please

are they already doing this? If so, maybe adjust the wordking/emphasis here

give absolute cost/Kg too

whose?

who is this quote form? "achieving" needs a reference

at what cost/L?

"enormously for cost' Seems potentially too strong here. ... as we have suggested above, the estimated cost share for cell banking is less than 1% of the total cost.

Am I correct? If so, please moderate this.

For each step, give a 'tldr' and an estimated cost share, and have the rest be something folded by default, which they can unfold

references Humbird and Risner -- adapt htis to also reference work from GFI

missing bold label in diagram for this

Flag a note (more discussion in tooltip) about how this is the cost of pure cell mass, and early/ultimate products might be hybrid CM, plant-based, fungal etc. ... so this overstates the cost, in a sense

"Achieving $10/kg" is probably too strong. Maybe 'claiming the ability'? And do you have a link to this?

diagram below a bit small. Last item looks like a drumstick -- maybe make it look like a 'chicken hamburger' instead? (Because early products unlikely to have bones)

make these folding boxes with extra content in tooltips

The high cell density is in blue, but you also put "micros" in blue, which suggests the two have a link. I don't think that's what it is. I think the high cell density will reduce the media cost, which is in green, and maybe other goals like bioreactor and operating expenses so I'm a bit confused.

Diagram below does not really make sense. Is it a breakdown of the cost components or something having to do with levers that could make the costs go up or down substantially? This needs more clarity.

Hyperlink is not working so well

Top of this, or maybe on another page, it would be nice to have some sort of mosaic graph with different cost break-downs for different scenarios. Dividing up the cost into different components to get to total cost per kilogram, and then perhaps each of those mosaic elements could link to a different section explaining it.

This part of the model and also define what you mean by "binary switch" specifically in a tooltip.

I don't think these were mentioned anywhere either - Dash. Are these growth factors? If they're not growth factors, why are you discussing them in this section?

What is albumin? You did not mention it anywhere else in this document. Is it a growth factor?

Which of the growth factors do these "solutions" pertain to?

Where did you find the market data ?

It doesn't really matter what the price is per gram of inpuy . The question is, what is the likely price per kilogram of chicken meat output. add a column for this.

Tooltip example here, please.

Give listings, examples, and links/citations with tooltip quotes.

Why are you telling me about all these different kinds of growth factors? Do they all need to be used? Are they alternatives to each other? Have you defined what the terms in the "function" column mean?

And how much of them will need to be used per kilogram of chicken meat produced (or whatever weight we are standardizing things to here), what cost implications? Right to always bring things to this standard unit of cost per kilogram of chicken meat.

How does dollars per liter map into dollars per whatever unit of chicken meat we're using here? It's going to depend on the cellular density. I presume the cellular density is the same for these two types of media, or does one lead to much less dense cells?

To what extent is it clear that these can just simply be used, and to what extent is this still an important uncertainty? If it's clear that they can be used, We should make that clear-- to flag this so people don't think of it as still an important uncertainty. But we should look for more references here to be sure.

Try not to state things in a very prescriptive way. We're meant to be providing background information, not ordering people around.

Again, this really just seems too strong a statement to make. We need a little bit more epistemic modesty and reasoning transparency.

Another hovering "?" here

Where exactly does it come from though?

Maybe rewrite the headline to actually say that the total media cost is predicted to be out 40 to 70% of production cost, or whatever the numbers tell us. I don't need to expand it to get the headline result.

Any way you could cite more recent references?

Which ones give an explanation, maybe in a tooltip?

But why focus at research scale? Could you give what is projected to be a production scale?

Where does the supply come from? Are animals being killed here to produce it?

This might be a folding box. I'm not sure if it enters into the previous narrative. ?

So which of the above is this used for? It seems like it covers several of the above things you're calling "media". That's a little bit confusing to have this overlap of some sort.

Give me some excerpts from that page and explain what it means. You just linked to a sort of commercial page. It's not very helpful or easy to navigate.

A question mark comes up when I hover over this, but I don't see any tooltip explaining what it is.

Also, why are you talking about bovine serum if we're thinking about chicken here? At least you should explain the analogy.

Quantify this.

Maybe group the cheapest things together in one row unless there's some sort of environmental or ethical issue with them.

Tool tips should explain what each of these things are.

Not all costs, just this component of cost. Again, I want to know what share that makes up of the total to put this in perspective. It's only a minor share of total cost. It's not really a pivotal cost driver, is it?

Try to put these in terms of cost per unit of meat produced in a mature production process, and try to use the same units everywhere so we know how to compare each element and sub-element.

List these by order of estimated share of cost in a production-scale process. And give a rough estimate of those shares, and those should be on the same scale - expressed per unit of output, in the same units. Give a disclaimer, of course, that this is just based on one particular estimate, and you can link to the actual model.

What share of media costs are these in different models and reports? I thought this was possibly the largest?

Link this part of the model. Backlinks might also be good from the model to this explanation (here and everywhere else. )

Batch versus perfusion? You haven't given enough narrative here. I don't know why you're telling me this. Are these different bioreactor types, and if so, how does it map into the categories you just gave above?

This is a little confusing to me because what do you mean designed for food production? What is the standard food production use of this if not for cultured meat?

These images below are also too small.

These sources are all from 2021 or earlier - can't you find some updated cost figures?

Link some pictures of these types of tanks, or perhaps a folding box showing these pictures. You'll have to do a web search to look these things up.

What's the typical cost of the reactor transfer in an established, larger-scale production process? Would this still be a substantial share of total costs?

But isn't the sort of media that achieves higher density more expensive? I'm actually uncertain about this.

Source for the quote "often pharma grade?" Okay, you're relying heavily on Humbird here. Find some other sources, and I've heard that now most companies are using food grade instead of pharma grade. Look into that and discuss in tooltip footnotes.

For each phase, I want you to give some indication of the share of costs, in terms of the total cost per unit of meat, that this could potentially encompass, both at a small scale and at a larger scale.

The text is a bit crowded here, so the numbers overlap the words. Try to adjust to give it a little more space.

Give more continuous references, perhaps as tooltips, to where you are getting this information from about the process. Perhaps give citations with links and short quotes.

Link to this regulatory approval thing - how difficult/Costly is it to get that approval, or do we already have this for the important immortalized cell lines?

Doesn't really explain how the costs work. Ultimately, the banked cells are used up, correct? Are you saying that cell banking is just a tiny share of the cost here, if you end up using the whole batch, is that right?

Image is still a bit too small.

Are we trying to isolate and why? Maybe this is a tool tip? And what's enzymatic digestion?

You did not use the term "cell banking" in the flow chart above. This can be confusing when you change terms. We don't know what Maps to what

Give the name of the paper and a tooltip, and also explain what aspects of these claims the source provides, perhaps with quick quotes.

Explain, perhaps in a tooltip, why the similarity is helpful here. That I don't really know what these things mean (e.g., what does ng mean?)

Provide a tooltip/link to discussion from animal welfare advocates about this, perhaps on the EA forum.

Tooltip hover should show the name of the paper, et cetera.

Can you make an image without a bone in it that still looks like a piece of chicken meat? I don't think bones are happening any time soon in cultured meat.

What's a seed train?

Seems too strong. Media costs exceed GF costs in many formulations I've seen.

this seems a bit too strong from my reading. Media costs exceed GF costs in many formulations

But atm we donm't have confidence in this model. I's more about fixing ideas and giving people a sense of what sort of modeling we want (and surfacing doubts and disagreements on this) so that we can productively collaborate.

Ideally, we'd also have a page/interface where people could 'build their own models' and we compare them.

This should probably be mirrored or linked a bit more on the man quote model page so people understand where it comes from.

Skip this last bit. Try to condense the content at the top a bit more for this page

Make this list prominent/folded.

Don't need this at the top of the technical reference page.

folding box

I'm not sure all results do, maybe only the top boxes?

a continuous variable I guess, not binary. Make this clearer to avoid confusion

More caveats about this model ... largely AI generated, as of 27 Mar 2026 we can't vouch for the numbers, provided to give a sense of the sort of modeling we're interested in, and present a framework for discussion and comparison

Based on which parameters? the user-entered ones above?

Important -- are these means or medians of a distribution used in simulation or are these simple 'degenerate' numbers. Explain and signpost better

And do they affect the figures and graphs below? #important

Do these adjust as I change the sliders above? I changed the 'plant capacity' and I did not see any change here. What's going on? #important

only these 3? Does the model incorporate other info?

which model? Does this adapt dynamically?

give some tooltip explainers here

make the graph below a bit bigger

Wait -- adjust this to consider/note the CM inclusion rate (%) and cost of plant-based or mycoprotein ingredients ($/kg)

Where did the slider range and starting value come from? Explain in a tooltip

Have a separate number for each of these boxes (slightly less prominent) for 'hybrid product cost/kg' ...

User should be able to input a 'CM inclusion rate (%) and cost of plant-based or mycoprotein ingredients ($/kg) as parameters', and this should do a simple auto adjustment.

First just a simple adjustment, and later we make this part of the simulation model.

Also allow user to switch this 'hybrid product' on/off (box below 'Include downstream processing'

Caveat/note here about cost of producing the pure cultivated chicken cells, vs cost of the product that will have some percentage of these cells mixed with other (plant, fungal, etc.) ingredients.

Make it clear that we're giving the cost/kg for pure chicken cells, not the consumer product, which may (likely?) involve a small to moderate fraction of these cells in the output. Thus the 'price parity with conventional meat' might be easier to attain than the raw numbers suggest.

Make a prominent note (and unfold further discussion) about the production cost of pure cultured chicken cells versus the cost of the products offered, which are likely to include a mix of chicken cells, plant elements, maybe fungal elements, and other things.

Thus the cost per kg of pure chicken might not be assessed

why wouldn't you include these?

provide a reference for this approach, and provide and link a more detailed explanation

Note that we're open to considering other distributional forms, and making the modeling flexible to allow for different (chosen or simulated) distributions

give some specific examples of cases where this is used

Note that for ~switching parameters, the model samples both from the probabilities of a switch to a different regime (a different discrete state of the world, e.g., a new discovery) and then, in each simulation, uses this probability to select a particular state. (word this better, and be sure I'm correct here)

"!" in red seems like a warning. No need for that. Also, Can you make each of these a folding box, initially folded

you don't need to put this here because it's not a 'resource' for this question

link the original paper/post as well as our evaluatinos

It's not really 'unjournal work'

Still a bit too strong to say 'found' -- this is their result -- the document should not endorse it nor criticize it

too many here (and also all from a single source, GFI. Try to diversify sources, but also use folding and tooltips to reduce the clutter

these are all GFI!! are there any other sources we could find?

Link actual report

this feels a bit too ad-hominem an attack. A tooltip can mention the author's relationship to the company but should not imply that it nullifies the arguments made. See if the author themself made any points about this

skip this one maybe? I don't want to focus on Climate

'aim to respond'

'corporate AW campaigns'

"THL" is not clear here. What is that? Instead 'best other intervention category'

add tooltip -- "You can provide projections for future years in the discussion section, if desired"

I don't think I want to show these - these will anchor people based on our own previous review in ways that we might not want

skip this one ... too indirect #implement

Give an (optional) slider for them to state what share of benefit, relative to the next best intervention, is achieved, along with 80% CIs

This last sentence seems out of place.

Prematurely definitive. Make it more like "organizing discussion around key cruxes such as"

I haven't wanted to make this central. It's worth mentioning, but I wouldn't make it the 'headline' of the fourth point

tooltip reference and link with a direct quote

give tooltip links and direct quotes, with dates and paper names #implement -- important

"July 2025 EA Forum post' -- make this a tooltip #implement

Tooltip here about how we note there may be a range of other important benefits and perhaps costs here, including environmental benefits, reduction of animal-to-human disease vectors, etc., but we are mainly focused on animal welfare for this conference.

Not quite -- these will come out of the PQ project -- see the 'request to evaluators' here: https://coda.io/d/Unjournal-Public-Pages_ddIEzDONWdb/Cultured-meat-PQ-Request-to-TEA-evaluators_suyucPLB#_luoC2X-O

Add a link here: "See our EA Forum post for further discussion." (hyperlink https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7ha23d3qzXiCqYLDq/is-cultured-meat-commercially-viable-unjournal-s-first)

This is a bit too simple -- see other discussion pages. For the 'what to fund' question, we need to consider the marginal benefit of funding on the probability and magnitude of success in fostering CM (sooner) and displacing animal products and animal suffering. This is discussed too much more detail in the specific PQ definitions, motivations and resources.

But "CM is plausibly able to achieve near price parity" seems highly correlated or causally entangled with "funding CM development (and supporting it politically) is likely to have high AW impact per dollar". IN particular, if it seems practically impossible for CM to ever get close to near parity. Then it seems unlikely that the CM project will be successful and thus a near guarantee that additional funding will have little impact.

But we should note or at least footnote that that's more of a necessary than a sufficient condition. CM funding could have a low impact/$ for other reasons, e.g., if, on the other hand CM is likely to be successful soon irrespective of this funding.

Explain why we targeted this 'cross category' substitution. We understand it's initially counter-intuitive. TLDR: Impossible Beef is a defined category with fairly clear pricing and high quality, but chicken consumption is more animal-welfare-relevant than beef. But we have variants of this that are more within-category. Put the TLDR in a tooltip and a longer explanation in a folding box.

Some more detailed explanation at https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/kazWBBYXm2Rvya3y2/p/3Eh8MbqLwFBsD7GK2#Why_focus_on_chicken_consumption_ and https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/kazWBBYXm2Rvya3y2/p/3Eh8MbqLwFBsD7GK2#Why_focus_on_Impossible_Beyond_Beef_

I'd link the Metaculus question right next to each question here.

Add some other potential segments, perhaps

• "business, government, and philanthropic environment and the cost of capital."

• "How is cultured meat produced -- a cost-focused background overview"

• "Constructing TEAs, uncertainty modeling, and forecasting" -- hands on modeling (post-workshop hack session, 2-5 hours)

Still add your annotations and let me know what you think about hypothesis as a format for collaborative discussion.

This feels a bit vague to me. Are there specific policies that would be affected?

Make this less prominent -- no 'header' until after the workshop

remember -- we are not focused on cross-population comparisons for this workshop. It's more about 'which interventions yield greater welfare', which would generally involve differences in difference, ideally across comparable populations (but not always)

Where did the discount and time factor come from? Where did these definitional equations come from? I didn't think most emply estimated WELLBY measures considered multi-year collection or impact. And are they really discounting?

Cut this. I don't think it necessarily holds -- a lot of interventions impact mortality.

Add to footnote -- the 'incremental' WELLBYs may be captured by observing differences between comparable treated and untreated populations.

it's not really 'accounting' -- these are conceptual

A link to this would be helpful. The "Green Book". (I wonder -- how impactful has this actually been on British policy?)

I suspect we don't have any good measures of this? There's the Peasgood paper but I don't think that was in a LMIC and I'm not sure how much it has been vetted?

We'd especially like pre-session feedback on

• Are these ~accurate?
• Are they useful? At the right level
• What is redundant?
• Which issues should we skip (as less important to intervention choices for LMIC, mostly-resolved, or intractable?)
• What is missing?
• Is there a better overall structure and framing for these?
• Where does it go into too much detail? Where is it too opinionated in cases where we should leave things open?
• Are we failing to attribute any important sources for language, arguments, or claims? *

underexplained/too brief perhaps

why do we use the word 'layer' -- is this the term in the literature?

"Close to linear" is interesting -- a footnote could expand on this a bit

This was mentioned above, but does it do so in a scale-sensitive way?

As I suggested, it's not enough to have it be 'somewhat predictive'

This needs more context and explanation. I've forgotten what g of x is here, and what's the actual calculation? Also, this doesn't seem to be illustrating the point that it means to. As I move the slider, population B always seems to be higher, but also it seems like we're getting away from the discussion of the relative impact of different interventions. We don't want to just simply compare populations. If this does pertain to interventions, explain better.

Exokain a bit more (as a footnote) what the 'transformation' means here and why/when it's used

Do they? Magnitudes of what? Explain. Give a 1-2 sentence exampls as a footnote

This is simple and perhaps obvious, but good for illustrating the simple WELLBY linear WELLBY concept, but that's already been explained above. I'm not sure what should maybe be put at the top. I'm not sure if it's useful down here. OK put this at the top, in a folding box -- it just helps to make sure we're all in on the same page about the definition of the WELLBY here.

Perhaps it would also be helpful to include some sort of adjusted WELLBY calculator interface that's a more sophisticated concept people might not appreciate, particularly embodying the approach in Benjamin and others.

This explanation is not clear. It could be improved, it's a bit too literal. Why do ordinal responses only tell us in which interval a latent value falls into?

This might also be worth folding

add a bit more 'narrative' here

comparison of what -- be more precise

An example here would be very helpful. ... Perhaps even an interactive display.

Monotonic transformations of what?

This should be fleshed out in more detail and rigor, along with some responses to it, and probably belongs earlier on in the discussion.

....

What do you mean, comparing "average happiness between groups is not identified"? What is the thing that is not identified?

This diagram is not fully explained. I don't see how it relates to the rest of the content either.

This flow chart is too small and it's underexplained. I don't understand what each of these is meant to mean and how they fit together.

Adjust this -- "If you prefer your response to remain anonymous, please use a pseudonym and try to use the same one consistently if you're providing multiple responses." If you are fine with internal recognition but don't want any public attribution, please let us know and share any other concerns in the field at the bottom.

I'm considering adjusting this one to

Consider the 'value obtained when using the best feasible measure for cross intervention comparison in contexts like the focal context'. What share of this value is obtained, in expectation, from using the simple linear WELLBY measure for all interventions? Please give your central belief, and 90% credible intervals"

-- with a slider that goes from zero to one, and two other sliders that allow that allow you to specify the lower and upper bound of the 90% CIs.

NotebookLM:

"they applied their methodology to nine prominent results from the happiness literature—including the Easterlin Paradox, the U-shape of happiness in age, the ranking of countries by happiness, and the effects of marriage and children—and showed that the standard conclusions in all nine areas could be reversed using monotonic (specifically lognormal) scale transformations. They argued that these reversing transformations were "plausible," claiming they were no more skewed than the U.S. wealth distribution

However, later work questions the plausibility of this. .

See https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/232657/1/dp13905.pdf

It will take more than 60 minutes, but a skim might be doable in 60 minutes.

Add "(rsvps)" -- Also update this, I think we have over 20 by now.

is this ggplotly? Shouldn't it be dynamic? I don't seem to be able to adjust it

These are probably not updated costs -- Update and implement

Not 'video', possibly some written content, or we can extract issues from his evaluation to ask Benjamin et al.

The "least regret" is a formal term in information theory, I believe, or from Bayesian updating. Provide a footnote defining and referencing it. #Implement

We'd especially like pre-session feedback on

• Are these ~accurate?
• Are they useful? At the right level
• What is redundant?
• Which issues should we skip (as less important to intervention choices for LMIC, mostly-resolved, or intractable?)
• What is missing?
• Is there a better overall structure and framing for these?
• Where does it go into too much detail? Where is it too opinionated in cases where we should leave things open?
• Are we failing to attribute any important sources for language, arguments, or claims? *

But we're focused on interventions, not on average happiness between groups. - Be more specific to this. #Implement

--> "A key critique"

'potentially biasing'

what's meant by 'corner case' here?

what's MK? I forgot. Has it been defined?

Give a footnote with some examples here. What do the studies involving LMIC interventions do?

'cancels' is vague -- explain what is meant here in a footnote. #implement

the diagram is too small, and was never explained!

'influential' -- that's subjective. ///Link to an example

too inside-info for a whole box. -- make this a footnote at most

Missing the standard framing of the LS question here