As a deliberate outsider, I don’t yet have the inside view on these specific applications, but I will approach them through my three non-negotiable rules:
- Net shielded-spending impact is the only metric that counts
- Projects that deliver the highest shielded-spending impact get funded first and fastest, with iron-clad milestones and clawbacks
- A protected slice for loyal long-term builders and visionary research, always within a strict ceiling
In practice the choice is never just a binary “approve / reject”.
What we fund and what we don’t fund sends a powerful signal to the whole ecosystem about what we value, and I always try to do it with a growth mindset instead of a zero-sum game.
The how we decide, and especially how we communicate, even when we say no, is almost as important as the yes/no itself. Our words clarify how we think and contribute to the culture of the entire ecosystem.
In my experience there is almost always a third option: work with the applicant to reshape the proposal, change the timing, change the scope, or find a different angle that delivers real impact with lower risk. Every situation is unique and deserves to be treated as such; the same formal criteria must still be applied, but always with flexibility and common sense.
Here my specific thoughts on the three open proposals in separate replies: