@briico Thanks, Emily! That makes sense. I think what I'm suggesting here is that evaluating the cost-effectiveness for the project as-stated ($25K for 50) is easier because we can factor in the direct benefits to the 50 participants, which are less speculative than the potential for future expansion. If it scales down to -- say, $7.5K for five participants due to fixed elements of staffing costs -- then the benefit comes predominantly from information value / benefit to potentially scaling the intervention down the road. By the classic EA metric, $7,500 is 1.5 lives worth of bednets ~ I take that mode of analysis seriously but not literally by the way. It's tragic that cost-effective global health is so underfunded that the bar is that high . . .
If the argument for funding is heavily linked to increasing the probability of future, more cost-effective rounds, then it's a somewhat more complex analysis for the donor. Most notably, we have to think about the probability that you'll be able to get funding for expansion down the road. So any evidence you could share about ability to get non-EA funding would be helpful, as that would allow an update on the "likelihood that expansion will happen" factor in the back-of-envelope cost-effectiveness calculation.