We may want to list these growth factors.

Should we provide information here like what kind of TEA assumptions we have?

Given that the simple model provides year-based estimation and to make our question easier to answer, I would suggest to first ask "estimate of 2026", "estimate of 2031" then "estimate of 2036". This is consistent with short-medium-long run

This may make our estimation interval very wide not because people's diversed belief based on analysis and information (endogeneous) but may also from exogeneous factors. People from different country (even more specific location) make affect estimation.

I think there is the same problem that we have seen before, which is just too much words and information on the page, getting people lost in reading. I would suggest put all notes to popover boxes.

Here, given our estimation is in $/kg, should we convert these prices to $/kg, too?

This model is simple for researchers. However, for the purpose of reference by the general public, it may be still a overwhelming of information. Do we want to show this model during the workshop?

This kind of disagreement may come from institutional factors. For instance, location/country-based cost difference (exchange rate?) I would suggest to adjust the question a little bitso that estimations are on the same level. I have provided notes also on the question page.

The slide looks good here and works as a good supplementary. From audience perspective, I would be happy to preview. However, from experiment design perspective, this may effect the results of belief (say cost estimation). But no big problem.

I would suggest this question changed to: "Forecast the of median expert-suggested probability that life satisfaction beats experience measures"

Also, same as previous question, the readers need to know what is "better"

I would suggest this question changed to: "Which of the following is better for well-being metric in welfare-relevant contexts (e.g XXX) A: Self-reported life satisfaction B: Instantaneous experience (happiness) measures"

Also, here we need to let reader know what does "better" mean, more readability/credibility/useful for policy-making?

I would suggest this question changed to: "Which of the following measures yield a better charitable allocation choice: A: WELLBY-based measure B: Separate measures plus combination"

I would also suggest we should provide an example of what are the separate measures and how do we do the combination to make it clearer.

Also, what is a charitable allocation choice that we are talking about, equity or efficiency? That matters I think.

This one is good and consistent with my previous comments.

This is quite similar to the first question. We can still use cost ratio and set the "best feasible measure" as 1 for the base. Then the question can be changed to: "By what percentage of increase/decrease in cost ratio for WELLBY measure compared to the best feasible measure?"

Here, following the first question, we can do: "Predict the median of experts belief over the cost ratio..."

I would suggest to use "cost ratio“, defined as "linear WELLBY ÷ best feasible measure" to make it clearer. So that this question can be changed into: "How large is the cost ratio (linear WELLBY ÷ best feasible measure) for the same welfare improvement choosing policy?"