Add a paragraph in this fold: You may also be interested in the Animal Welfare Futures forecasting tournament we co-launched with Metaculus and Sentient futures. $3,400 in prizes and only about 25 forecasters as of June 26. It includes some cultivated-meat questions (but not the specific cost questions here), alongside other animal-welfare-relevant questions you may find interesting.

And change the folding block title to "Public forecasting on Metaculus; Animal Futures Tournament"

Add a paragraph in this fold: You may also be interested in the Animal Welfare Futures forecasting tournament we co-launched with Metaculus and Sentient futures. $3,400 in prizes and only about 25 forecasters as of June 26. It includes some cultivated-meat questions (but not the specific cost questions here), alongside other animal-welfare-relevant questions you may find interesting.

And change the folding block title to "Public forecasting on Metaculus; Animal Futures Tournament"

remove "short"

make fields similar or identical to prev form -- consistency is key

use same lang as prev form as ,much as possible for consistency

rethink this -- it prob takes longer

Thinking about this again. We're going to try to get the skeptics to share their beliefs right away and without seeing the beliefs specified by the workshop participants. This doesn't really need to be on this page, although you could mention it perhaps in a folding box for these people. The forum for the non-cultured meat f orecasters skeptics should probably be on its own standalone page. We also should let them know that we're going to be asking them for follow-up after they've considered the full set of beliefs, with additional compensation. So perhaps $100 for their initial belief statement plus $50 for that follow-up?

Ask them to do at least a reasonable share of the sub-questions... This seems like they are way too optional.

At the bottom of this, put a link to the "Next Steps" page as well as a link to the "Subquestions" page, to direct people's interest towards these, which are pretty high value

This stuff should be in a folding box, like "further details and notes. "

Put this at the bottom. It's too prominent here.

Don't give a gender, just use the word "they".

This is a bit less interesting for most people. I don't think it deserves its own tab, maybe a folding box somewhere.

We should have aggregation for these also. -- I only see the individual responses below.

Signpost this a little bit; I'm worried people are only going to see this question. Note that this was the focal question, but there's a set of other questions that are particularly interesting - link the "subquestions" tab.

Make the fairness note just the words "fairness note" and then a tooltip explaining that the difference in compensation is necessary to elicit participation from people with less inherent interest in learning about cultured meat. And that wWe hope to offer this sort of modest compensation more broadly in the future.

"of the first four"

Italics not bold. Note that this helps balance (in an ad-hoc way) as people without a direct links to cultured meat may have been less likely to attend our conference. And this is also very important to help us get at the cruxes and make real progress in the public understanding.

put a date here

Filter is taking up a bit too much vertical space, make it a little bit less bulky.

Make the question title a bit more prominent here.

This was a comment you didn't need to actually add literally.

Is this really potentially a straw man here? Who was actually saying there will be no AI wealth philanthropy? Not sure we need this particular "not this, but that" Construction here.

Claude: Michael Dickens: "What would update this memo?" – as with the gates, no sense of prioritization is given. IMO by far the biggest uncertainty, about which we will get more information in the future, is: What will Anthropic's valuation be when the lockup ends? "Concrete donor vehicles" is also important evidence, but we won't get that until probably 6-24 months later.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: That section says "Funders and field builders should prioritize grantmaker capacity", but that's what to do if the skeptical case is wrong, not if the skeptical case is right.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: The recommendations under "How to plan if the skeptical case is live" don't really make sense. AFAIK ~zero orgs are planning as if they're guaranteed to get a huge pile of donations 1–2 years from now. I believe nonprofits mainly plan based on the money they already have on their books + short-term (<1 year) fundraising expectations. "How to plan if the skeptical case is live" is just "business as usual".

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: My downward adjustments to the model aren't even the pessimistic case. The pessimistic case* is that the AI field collapses (investor funding dries up or something) and Anthropic stock is worth $0. Base rate says there's like a 50% chance that that will happen. Even optimistically, you should expect at least a 10–20% chance that Anthropic stockholders get nothing.

*this is pessimistic for donations but I would actually prefer that this happen because it would lengthen timelines. so in a way it's the optimistic outcome

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: "The steelman could be too pessimistic if founders or employees treat liquidity as an urgent moral obligation" – TBH the BOTEC as written seems to me like it's already pricing in that founders/employees will treat donations as urgent, e.g. it's implying that Anthropic money will be disbursed faster than FTX Foundation money, which itself was disbursed at historic speed. IMO most likely reason why the model will end up underestimating is that Anthropic market cap ends up being like 10x higher than predicted.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: "Field absorption ceiling" is structured more sensibly than "Grantmaker capacity multiplier", but these two seem redundant because they're closely related. If orgs have more capacity to expand, grantmakers can deploy money faster by giving to those orgs. If there are more grantmakers, they can create more and bigger RFPs. etc. I would include one variable or the other, but not both.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: Also this would make more sense as a dollar amount, not a multiplier. Like there's a fixed total amount that grantmakers can reasonably disburse. You could model it in a more complicated way but IMO a simple cap is the way to do it. Or maybe don't use this parameter at all. I think it's probably worth including, but keep it simple.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: "Grantmaker capacity multiplier" seems nonsensical as written. Shouldn't the capacity max out at 1x? If grantmakers are a complete non-bottleneck, then the other parameters will dictate the amount disbursed; if they're a bottleneck, then the amount disbursed will be less. There's no way for grantmaker capacity to have a multiplier >1x.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: I would delete the OpenAI Foundation bit because (1) the model has enough parameters already and (2) I doubt OpenAI Foundation will give much money to causes that look good by EA lights.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: IMO "Deployment by end-2026" should use a different date. IPO 3-6 months from now plus 6 months lockup means no money will be deployed in 2026, unless Anthropic does a fast IPO + early lockup release. Even by the end of 2027, you're talking about a 3-9 month turnaround time on lockup ending -> grants being disbursed. FTX Foundation donated $190 million (pre-clawbacks) in about 6 months, which was ridiculously fast compared to a typical foundation, and that was still a pretty small % of its long-term budget (or at least, what was believed to be its long-term budget before FTX collapsed).

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: This model is supposed to illustrate how a lot of people are being too optimistic, but even then, I think most of the point estimates in the model are too optimistic. Consider that e.g. the median self-reported earner-to-give only donates (IIRC) 3% of their income.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: "Employee committed pool" is defined in terms of dollars rather than as a % of company valuation, which seems weird. Shouldn't it depend on the value of the equity?

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: Unclear what the "Founder pledge" variable refers to. Is it the % of pledgers' wealth that they've pledged to donate? If so, the default of 80% seems really high?

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: "Anthropic valuation" variable should specifically be the valuation at the end of the 6-month lockup. Doesn't matter much for a point estimate but it would increase the variance if there variable were a probability distribution.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: It looks like the default estimates in the BOTEC are pulled from the sources, but it's not clear which estimates came from which sources. There should be inline citations.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: Would be cool for the BOTEC to use distributions rather than point estimates. (Squiggle is good for this, and Squigglehub even has a built-in way to have AI generate models.) IMO distributions are a lot more informative than point estimates.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: Gate 8 ("Bay social incentives") seems uninteresting since it's not a claim in the same category as the others. It's more like a meta-level reason why people might not think about the other 7 gates.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: Gate 5 and Gate 7 seem like they're saying the same thing.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: Gate 1 says IPOs have lock-ups. That's true but I basically don't think that matters because lock-ups are very predictable: they will announce how long it is, and that's exactly how long it will be. There's no uncertainty. The main reason it's relevant is that a lockup gives more time for AI valuations to fluctuate or collapse, but the text doesn't even mention this.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

Claude: Michael Dickens: All 8 gates look correct to me, but they don't all deserve equal emphasis.

Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fFDM9RNckMC6ndtYZ/david_reinstein-s-shortform?commentId=JS2dmcbgfvy3xtBwj

where do the defaults come from? Explain, reference, link (maybe as tooltips)

this needs fleshing out -- not sure what this is about

I don't see how this would 'alienate future donors'?

What does the room mean here

this is probably something to endogenize in the model in some way? For now I guess it's OK

latex note rendering here

This framing feels too negative and definitive for my taste. As some of the modeling and discussion gets at, a single 'negative public signal' should not be so damning as people seem to think.

Make this one the 'management team'?

add https://info.unjournal.org/ and unjournal.org links and content here

less text, item by item

'behind The Unjournal'

have these come out in steps

the 'suggest entry' is now going to a dead GH page -- find a better approach and solution

can these be restated as questions?

Better stated as a question ... something like "Do neuron counts reliably correlate with the welfare-relevant capacities organisms actually possess?" (of course 'reliably' probably would need operationalization, and this elides the possibility that it may "reliably correlate" but the correlation may be low)

these are good, but can they be separated out and flexhed out and made more explicit?

Not sure this one is an actual crux, rather an attempt to draw out Open Phil (now CG) on their moral weighting

'prioritizes' is not clear here. Do they better operationalize this ... how would it be decided/measured?

meta -- not an actual crix

clarify -- hard to read this

this is a fairly well-defined operationalized crux. It's old, but I guess 'we still are not confident'!

'is load-bearing on' ... that's too jargony; state it more clearly

this latter bit is closer to being a specific 'crux'. remember we want these stated as operationalizable questions,if possible. And try to find the single question crux that seems most important or most correlated to the others. You can have another column listing other cruxes raised.

you don't need "the authors ... " ... just state their crux question ... obviously it's the author

This one is getting good. It seems pretty relevant, but I want you to state it as an explicit opertionalizable question here.

too meta

State the actual crux. Your description here is more about the implications of the crux.

You can state somewhat general grounds, but then give a specific instantiation if possible. E.g., something about whether one form of slaughter is more painful to shrimp than another, or whether analgesia is good evidence, etc.

this is too general/vague. I want explicit defined crixes. What is the specific question they are uncertain about, how would you measure it, and what decision would it change?

What exactly is the crux here? You haven't explained it.

It's also not that explicit. It's kind of meta.

ok but too meta -- maybe name ONE crux here and/or flesh out rows?

This is more like meta. I don't think it's an actual crux

This feels a bit vague and could be explained and specified better

Allow more sophisticated sorting, e.g., by relevance and then by date, or by some combination.

Note the existing prize pool ($3400) ... change this to 'expand'

these have now been finalized. Maybe integrate some of them in?

Put in the link here, make it clear it's live, make it prominent, and perhaps use some of the style and language from there and incorporate it into this page.

We should adjust this - it's the first funded tournament that focuses broadly on animal welfare (there was an unfunded tournament as well as one focused on cultured meat).

Cite this. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bDqdfMXe6YuYnwMDA/good-tasting-alt-meat-is-a-scientific-problem-we-can-solve Perhaps give a tool tip or a little background to help make it clear that this is something being funded and of strong interest to major funders.

'compensation' tooltip not working

add "And compensation for good feedback, if we offer it -- always grandfathered in" -- tooltip actually

this but at the top is a bit long and even though it condenses a bit it's still a bit bulky and keeps popping up again as we scroll down.

Also, I want this to clearly state at the top that most of this content, including the explanations, has been generated using AI, although I have been looking over it and adjusting

GPT5.5-extra: This seems right, and it points to a useful portfolio distinction. Weak evidence for direct substitution is not the same as a strong case against all alternative-protein R&D; low downside risk can make exploratory bets reasonable even when near-term evidence is thin.

The decision-relevant question is not just "is this evidence-based now?" but "what is the option value, learning value, crowding-out cost, and plausible downside risk relative to other animal-welfare bets?"

GPT5.5-extra: I agree with this direction. A useful design distinction is between (1) decision-question elicitation, (2) study design and data collection, (3) independent review/replication, and (4) translation into funding or implementation decisions.

"Taking ownership" should not mean collapsing these roles into a single interested evaluator. The highest-value infrastructure may be a pipeline with clear handoffs, independent review, public evaluation packages, and explicit decision thresholds.

GPT5.5-extra: This is an important point, but I would separate "widely recommended/funded" from "best marginal opportunity." A field can converge on interventions because they are legible, scalable, fundable, or coalition-friendly, not only because they have the strongest evidence.

That distinction matters for diagnosis: the problem may be less "people made bad calls" and more "the field lacks institutions that can generate, audit, and translate decision-relevant evidence before interventions become large funding defaults."

GPT5.5-extra: This is plausible, and I am sympathetic, but the post does not fully close the argument for "#1 priority." To make the case, I would want an explicit value-of-information comparison: how much better could targeted R&D make future funding decisions, how soon, at what cost, and relative to the best marginal scaling opportunities?

This is exactly the kind of question that seems well suited to animal-welfare evidence infrastructure: pre-specified decision-relevant questions, rapid review, and evaluation packages rather than scattered academic outputs.

GPT5.5-extra: I would soften "equivalent substitutes" here. Peacock's review is mainly about current plant-based meat and hypothetical improvements in price/taste/convenience; it does not establish that actually equivalent future substitutes, cultivated meat, or precision-fermentation products would fail to substitute. It is stronger as evidence that current plant-based availability and many current interventions have weak or uncertain effects.

Source: https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/price-taste-and-convenience-competitive-plant-based-meat-would-not-currently-replace-meat/

GPT5.5-extra: I agree with the direction, but would phrase this as "limited and hard-to-interpret evidence" rather than simply "little evidence." There is evidence from current plant-based meat and meat-reduction interventions, but it is hard to generalize to future products or to settings where price/taste/convenience are genuinely competitive.

This is also a measurement problem: substitution across animal products, plant-based products, eating occasions, and longer-run market responses is difficult to estimate with standard demand data.

Related Unjournal/PQ context: https://uj-pba-workshop.netlify.app/

GPT5.5-extra: This conclusion depends on what "blanket push" means. I would distinguish: (1) poorly managed or abrupt transitions, (2) regulatory/corporate cage-free commitments with weak implementation support, and (3) mature higher-welfare cage-free or free-range standards. The evidence against (1) or (2) is not automatically evidence against (3).

This seems like a good place for a decision-relevant decomposition: mortality, painful morbidity, behavioral deprivation, transition costs, and implementation quality should be modeled separately rather than compressed into "cage-free yes/no".

GPT5.5-extra: The 2021 meta-analysis does more than gesture at this counterpoint: it analyzes 6,040 flocks and 176M hens and finds mortality in cage-free aviaries decreases with experience; in recent years it finds no significant mortality difference among indoor systems. That does not prove all cage-free transitions improve welfare, but it weakens the inference from early/high-mortality transitions to mature cage-free systems.

Source: Schuck-Paim et al. 2021, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81868-3

GPT5.5-extra: This is a reasonable concern if the CSES aviary result is representative, but I would avoid leaning too hard on this single-farm comparison as evidence about cage-free systems overall. The linked CSES system was one implementation at one commercial site, and the broader Schuck-Paim et al. 2021 dataset suggests mortality in aviaries falls substantially as producers gain experience.

The stronger statement is: transition quality and management can matter a lot, and mortality/vent pecking are important welfare proxies, but this particular comparison does not by itself settle overall cage-free welfare.

Sources: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81868-3 and https://welfarefootprint.org/laying-hens/

GPT5.5-extra: I read this as evidence that the tail flip is a ventral-nerve-cord reflex, not as a proposal to decapitate shrimp as a slaughter method. Weineck et al. 2018 transected shrimp and found that isolated abdomens began tail-flipping in ice slurry; cutting the segmental roots prevented the movement. Their interpretation is that this is locally neural and involuntary, not driven by higher central brain centers.

So the evidential role is narrow: tail flips alone should not be treated as strong evidence of either conscious distress or insensibility, because a similar movement can be generated after separation from the head. It does not show that ice slurry is humane; it weakens one simple behavioral proxy.

Source: Weineck et al. 2018, section 3.7, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/8/9/158

GPT5.5-extra: Clarification after checking: Weineck et al.'s "ECG" was not a mammalian-style electrical ECG. It was an impedance measure of movement or fluid between leads over the heart, so amplitude tracks contraction/flow rather than subjective experience directly. The 2026 Somerville et al. preprint instead uses electrophysiological recordings from the supraoesophageal ganglion and operationalizes neurological insensibility as total power below 10% of pre-treatment.

That is a meaningful proxy for neural activity, not a direct welfare readout. The electrode/current-path concern remains reasonable for external validity, but I would phrase the issue as partial proxies with unclear thresholds/noise floors and weak industrial translation, not as "the signals tell us nothing".

Sources: Weineck et al. 2018 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/8/9/158; Somerville et al. 2026 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6315379

GPT5.5-extra: Steelman from the current sources: the evidence does not seem to imply "electrical stunning is bad" or "ice slurry is fine". It implies parameter sensitivity.

The 2026 Somerville et al. preprint reports that lower-voltage/shorter electrical shock followed by cold shock sometimes left substantial neural activity or behavioral response, while higher-voltage/longer shock plus cold shock confirmed insensibility in the no-response group; below-0C ice slurry alone also reduced time to low neural activity. SWP's 2026 review interprets the wider decapod evidence as electrical stunning having greater potential than chilling to induce insensibility, while saying species-specific electrical parameters and operational standards remain uncertain.

Sources: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6315379 and https://www.shrimpwelfareproject.org/humane-stunning-white-paper

GPT5.5-extra: I would narrow this. The record supports "mortality evidence during cage-free transitions is mixed and confounded"; it is less clear that evidence on overall welfare is mixed in the same way.

Schuck-Paim et al. 2021 cover 6,040 flocks and 176M hens and find cage-free aviary mortality falls as producers gain experience, with no recent mortality difference among indoor systems. WFI's welfare model estimates lower cumulative pain in cage-free aviaries than cages, while noting important research gaps. The comment thread also matters: Cynthia Schuck-Paim argues the CSES study is a weak basis for mortality/welfare conclusions because the aviary was poorly managed and not a fair mature-system comparison.

Sources: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81868-3 and https://welfarefootprint.org/laying-hens/

GPT5.5-extra: I would soften/generalize this claim. The strongest public evidence I found supports: current plant-based meat and many meat-reduction interventions have weak or uncertain substitution effects.

Peacock's RP report explicitly focuses on plant-based meats because cultivated meats are not widely available; it is not a direct test of future cultivated meat or precision-fermentation products. Green, Smith & Mathur 2025 meta-analyze RCTs of behavior-change interventions and find a very small pooled effect; they also say many promising interventions await rigorous evaluation. That is evidence of a gap and weak current intervention effects, but not yet evidence that all alternative proteins, once genuinely cheaper/tastier/more convenient, would have weak substitution.

Sources: https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/price-taste-and-convenience-competitive-plant-based-meat-would-not-currently-replace-meat/ and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666325003861

GPT5.5-extra: I added a small evidence-audit pass on this post. The detailed notes are threaded under David Reinstein's Hypothes.is annotations, but the main takeaways are:

1. Shrimp stunning: the evidence seems parameter-sensitive, not a blanket case that electrical stunning is bad or that ice slurry is fine. Current Whiteleg-shrimp evidence supports more R&D and machine validation rather than confident deployment standards.

2. Tail flips in ice slurry: Weineck et al. 2018 suggests this behavior can be a ventral-nerve-cord reflex, so tail flips alone are a weak proxy for either conscious distress or insensibility.

3. Electrode and neural/heart signals: the measurements are meaningful proxies, but not direct welfare readouts. Instrumentation, thresholds, and industrial translation remain important uncertainties.

4. Cage-free hens: the strongest narrower claim is that mortality evidence during cage-free transitions is mixed and confounded. That should not be collapsed into a claim that overall cage-free welfare evidence is equally mixed.

5. Alternative proteins: the public evidence I found supports weak or uncertain current plant-based substitution effects, but does not directly settle future cultivated meat, precision-fermentation, or genuinely cheaper/tastier/more convenient alternatives.

Detailed threaded notes: - Tail-flip reflex: https://hypothes.is/a/hyqLCmP9EfG-yj97z6fOYA - Electrode/proxy clarification: https://hypothes.is/a/jBrRpmP9EfGf93sIx5Tvwg - Shrimp-stunning evidence: https://hypothes.is/a/kSFQ5GP9EfGIt0f_B-4m3g - Cage-free welfare distinction: https://hypothes.is/a/lhR3FmP9EfGfBDupz9xTgw - Alternative-protein substitution scope: https://hypothes.is/a/nFLdSGP9EfGlirtHBhD0AQ

this is a 'layer', yes, and that's relevant for thinking about now, but in the ultimate display I don't think we should call it a 'layer'

OK your language is good, but why not use direct quotes from evaluation manager's report/summary

some things like this could should be tooltips

link the paper and provide DOI, bibliometrtics etc -- OK, you do that below, but the paper link should really be at the top too.

2 what? What units? This seems a bit of an AI lack of contexgtual understanding

this is an AI generated summary. Not sure we want that. Perhaps better to lead with content from the Evaluation Manager's summary ... .although I admit this overview seems very useful, as long as it's accurate

bit at the top a bit too persistent. I can't seem to fold or dissapear it as I scroll down

and whether having both would be too disagregated/cluttery

make it clear when things are quotes vs AI-generated paraphrases

these are not legal-specific -- we do this in the standard model too

Should be labeled as an early automated prioritization tool, outside of legal research.

--> 'prioritization workflow'

and governance

curated by our team or ...

This is sort of generic -- why is this especially relevant to legal scholarship?

remove 'and improve it' because the 'it' here is vague. The idea is to help us improve this curation and it's usefulness. We should also invite experts and practitioners to suggest additional research.

tooltip -- use context to add a note on the prevalence of preprinting/working papers in legal scholarship

not sure what this is, but it yields "Access to Via is now restricted This Via link displayed annotations on this page: https://info.unjournal.org/legal-scholarship.html

You can view annotations on this site and others using our Chrome extension, our Bookmarklet, and on sites that embed Hypothesis."

Claude: Deep-research update (June 2026) — new sources added on omnivore fraction of PBM consumers.

Three high-confidence new findings integrated:

1. GFI US Consumer Snapshot (Jan 2025, Morning Consult Dec 2024, n=3,079): 72% of past-year US PBM eaters are active meat-eaters (57% omnivore + 15% carnivore); only 11% veg*n/pescatarian. Retail panel corroboration: 87% of US retail PBM dollars come from meat-buying households ($970M of $1,118M, NielsenIQ Homescan 2023). Now shown as primary chart in §04.5, replacing the less-precise Hartman Group range.

2. Neuhofer & Lusk (2022, Scientific Reports — already at src-29) details added: 85.97% of PBMA-buying households also purchased conventional ground meat; only 2.79% were exclusive PBMA buyers. Peer-reviewed, IRI scanner panel, n=38,966 households — the strongest methodological data point in the set.

3. Bryant Research UK (July 2023, n=1,000, new src-48): Occasional UK PBM consumers ~67% omnivore (consistent with prior claims). Key nuance: frequent UK PBM buyers split ~1/3 each (omnivores, flexitarians, non-meat-eaters). The ≥50% arithmetic lower bound for weekly consumers still holds regardless of frequency segmentation, but the 70–80%+ claim is better supported for occasional buyers or all-buyers combined than for the most committed frequent buyers specifically. This caveat is now added to the §04.5 evidence table and §08.

Stat card updated: '≥50%' replaced by '72%' (US direct survey) as the headline figure, with UK lower bound in the tooltip. TLDR and §08 paragraphs updated accordingly.

these should be checked -- this is AI suggestions

pre-reg is no guarrantee of credibility

But we do want some database structure for the content.

this seems like a good test

make it clearer that this is a living document, under active adjustment, and responsive to suggestions

link or tooltip support for this, for people not familiar with welfare weights etc

Put the 'which animal products, and their welfare burden' as the fourth item (d instead of c), because that weighting acts on 'the net reduction in production of each animal product'

I'd make (c) 'how much the production of each animal product adjusts in response in market equilibrium' [tooltip: this may not be 1 for 1, e.g., with scarcity or increasing marginal costs, if some consumers purchase less of an animal product, other consumers may pick up the slack. For example, with an ~inelastic supply of wild fish, if some consumers switch to plant-based equivalents, this may drive prices down, getting other consumers to buy more wild fish]

"make it a relatively tractable" ('most' is too conclusive)

how large is the plant-based meat market today

I don't see how this follows -- if 50%+ rate it as as good or better than the conventional product, that should imply that the median consumer finds it 'as good or better'. Correct?

This wotks better as a note than a quantitative report. Same for "Most favorable public category result" -- perhaps put those at the bottom in a few sentences rather than a tabular format

Fold this ... it's just your own speculation. Maybe even shorten it and use tooltips more, and note it's AI's speculation

I don't think this is 'the strongest evidence'. To me the GFI Germany/UK surveys seems particular strong at least for the EU.

which survey? a US-one right? THe GFI Europe one asked about actual consumption it seems

highlight/flag more that this is consuming not just buying

This is missing a lot of studies that look at real-world price data and are even considering plausibly exogenous price shifters -- see https://coda.io/d/Unjournal-Public-Pages_ddIEzDONWdb/Pivotal-Qs-curated-research-list_suEdljp5#_lu4-mRYw for a relevant list and classification of some of these

This should be a folding box folded by default, but also I'm not sure these explanations are particularly helpful here.

This last sentence doesn't add value. Cut it.

"Finds" is too strong ... Weaken this to something like "provides evidence suggesting"

I don't think this sentence is necessary. It's deeply confusing as well. You should probably remove this.

I don't think I agree with this. I don't see how retail market share or taste comparability data tell you about the impact of interventions on plant-based consumption, for example. . Maybe leave these last two sentences out. Or put them in a very speculative tool tip.

I'm not sure that either of these things are true. Cut the last part of the sentence, maybe. We're focusing on price because it's something economists are familiar with studying, and there potentially is actual data and variation in prices. (And also, we try to focus on one thing at a time rather than an overwhelmingly large set of questions. )

However, we've reported on this -- doublecheck it and rethink/revise

In Germany and the UK, the consumer survey story is also broader than a vegn niche. GFI Europe’s late-2024 survey found that 47% of German adults and 41% of UK adults said they were already reducing meat or following a meatless diet, and that 60% in Germany and 56% in the UK reported at least monthly consumption of some plant-based product category. For plant-based meat specifically, 25% of Germans and 23% of Brits reported consuming it in the last month. [DR: That’s an interesting and high level! Consuming (eating?) or just buying it? – digging in here – https://gfieurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/UK-Understanding-plant-based-category-dynamics-motivations-and-consumers.pdf it seems like we are talking about omnivores actually consuming PBM (regularly), which is important for our question about ‘is it mostly vegns eating PBM’? ] That supports a “mainstream-adjacent but imperfectly integrated” story much better than either a niche-vegan story or a full-substitution story. [13]

I'd change the order of the channels. Start with the taste parity, then the PBM buyers mostly being omnivores, and finally, the greater penetration in the natural/specialty channel as well as for some particular products like breakfast patties (the "greater penetration in some products and channels" can be bundled together as point three).

Might want to skip this "core finding" altogether and let the evidence below speak for itself.

Tooltip should explain what "the natural channel" means more carefully here. It's vague to a reader.

this is a complication but not an insurmountable barrier. Some products are indeed individually distinguished in the relevant data.

so?

Again, this is not a case against trying to measure the displacement/substitution rates!

this is true but it doesn't justify "not studying discplacement through scanner data, experiments, etc." The market share we're looking at here is meant to help us understand how plausible it is that substitution patterns currently matter.

I don't see how this supports the claim at the top of the section.

tooltip elaborate on this argument

--> "provides some insights"

"... and more research would have practical value"

"observational, not clearly causal, and specific to a particular context".

"arguably" -- this seems too definitive

"of high or low"

which data? this is vague

This 'X' is not quite clear ... it would have to be some sort of vector multiplication or summed multiplication for the 'mix' part

this subheader is unclear

Dig in on this more carefully -- are we sure these are 1. 'regular PBM buyers?' and 2. They are not just buying it for veg*n friends and relatives ?

"Would have bought otherwise, over the relevant period". Note that displacement need not occur in the exact same shopping trip. Intertemporal concerns could cut both ways. E.g., the 'within-trip substitution' would overstate the total substitution if people commpensate for having purchased PBM on one trip with "now let's eat more real meat" on the next trip or in a restaurant.

Do the rough price conversion, and also give the 'food flow' for the PBA -- we need a like-for-like comparison

maybe not 'added eating occasion' but 'simply increased total consumption'.

make this estimate a bit more prominent

Can you provide a source for 'where most of the animal-suffering of conventional meat sits'? E.g., what share of chicken consumption is 'whole cut'? What share is on-bone? What about shrimp consumption globally -- whole vs ground up/paste.

See previous discussion. This actually makes it MORE interesting to study, and offers more potential for displacement, the case in which it seemed that only prior vegetarians were buying this stuff

this doesn't seem to follow from the previous sentence

Think about this more and state in a a more reasoned logical way. Note that we're largely thinking about price here (as well as taste, nutrition and availability). We're largely focused on the the impact of cost and price on consumption and substitution. In fact, skeptics were saying that "we don't care too much about substitution and price impacts because 1. it has such a low market share and 2. it's not taste or nutrition comparable."

Looks like circular reasoning here. I'm not sure that this 'finding' is meaningful. It might need rephrasing

At the end, it doesn't quite make sense. If all PBM buyers (or consumers) were previously vegetarians, then the displacement would be close to zero. If they all only ate meat or PBM and consumed the exact same amount of protein every day, the displacement would be 100%. So it's not the 'dual buyers' that makes displacement less than 100% per se. The question is to what extent consumers, whether vegetarians or omnivores, are buying PBM 'instead of meat' or 'instead of other vegetarian/vegan food'.

• Material in what sense? How much money? How many animal lives saved, animal pain-years avoided, etc.?

I'd say "evidence suggesting that it may be a binding constraint" ... people may report one thing, but actually something else could be fundamentally behind their decision, perhaps even something ~subliminal that they can't identify themselves.

skip this sentence

An important fact, but a little bit strange to mix in here. It really belongs in the section below. ... tit's not quantitative either

? Have you really checked all other countries? Are you saying the US is a leader as well as Germany? That doesn't comport with my casual empiricism.

skip This last bit, it's tpo AI, "not this but that" and the patties are a distraction.

Consider whether this is really overlapping the bit in italics just after the title.

"reformed categories" Is not clear here. Give an example number (other than patties)

"Shows" It is too strong. Maybe quotes suggest, but even then you're not really providing transparent reasoning here.

That's a big if - we need evidence. That is presumably the ceiling on the substitution.

That's just a simple subtraction of 20% -11%? Because it's also possible that more than 9% stopped but some new users entered.

Are you sure about bratwurst? What's your source for this?

This is high value. Put something about this in the overview.

Leave the 'patty' figure out -- put that whole discussion in a tooltip. Add back some numbers about EU or German share of some other relevant categories like sausage (or what's the highest penetration category other than patties?)

Most of this is given in the 'a quick take' below. Just make this 2 sentences and flag 'unfold below for a quick take on the evidence'. And incorporate " better-tasting product categories capture 10× more market share, " with the reference tooltip into the fold below. -- Everything else here is basically already covered in that fold!

wait -- 1.4% is also the OVERALL -- are you sure 1.4% is 'mainstream"? The natural organic channel is virtually none of the market!

make it folded by default. And avoid overlap with the above

surfaced

footnote s should hyperlink back to their place in the text

some numbers are missing -- e.g., where is 36-39?

"where someone has published" -- this language is a bit too informal and amateurish. Improve it ... something like "where we could find a published cross-tabulation..."

I'd make the third point the evidence that there's evidence of taste parity for some products.

remove this claim. That's subjective

this line is meaningless. Delete this sentence. People can interpret the numbers as they wish

Header for this: "A quick take: The sceptical concerns are only partially supported" ... and make this a folding box

skip this lat line

not sure we need this type of variation .. more like 'is there sufficient available relevant data to permit meaningful statistical analysis.

--> Pre-workshop discussion

We are expanding this focus a bit for the workshop to consider substitution issues more generally, and perhaps more.

"Background: Is the PBA market mature enough for substitution measures to matter" -- make that the italiicized header for this but