> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://research.ambitiousimpact.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://research.ambitiousimpact.com/other/our-prioritization-funnel/stage-2-quick-prioritization/rubric-suggestion.md).

# Rubric suggestion

## Animal Welfare 

| Filter      | Priority | Score  | Description                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| ----------- | -------- | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Advance     | High     | 8 - 10 | <ul><li>Clear cost-effectiveness potential that could substantially beat the bar (well above 12 SADs/$)</li><li>Strong evidence base that is readily accessible even in light desk research (3+ good academic studies agree, and none disagree) </li><li>Obvious tractability with a straightforward Theory of Change and few speculative assumptions</li></ul>                                                                                                                             |
| Advance     | Medium   | 7-8    | <ul><li>Promising cost-effectiveness that appears likely to beat the bar, though may require some assumptions</li><li>Adequate evidence base with some high-quality (academic or case) studies, though gaps may exist</li><li>Reasonable tractability with Theory of Change that has some speculative elements but appears logical</li></ul>                                                                                                                                                |
| Advance     | Low      | 6-7    | <ul><li>Uncertain cost-effectiveness that might beat the bar but requires significant validation</li><li>Weak or mixed evidence base with limited (academic or case) studies or conflicting findings</li><li>Questionable tractability with a complex Theory of Change or multiple uncertain assumptions</li></ul>                                                                                                                                                                          |
| Reject      | Reject   | <6     | <p>(3-5) </p><ul><li>Unlikely to beat the cost-effectiveness bar even under optimistic assumptions</li><li>Very limited evidence base or evidence suggests intervention is ineffective</li><li>Major tractability concerns or a highly speculative Theory of Change</li></ul><p>(0-3)</p><ul><li>Cannot plausibly beat the cost-effectiveness bar</li><li>Evidence suggests intervention is harmful or ineffective</li><li>Fundamentally intractable or violates core assumptions</li></ul> |
| <p><br></p> |          |        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |

## Human Wellbeing&#x20;

| Filter  | Priority | Score  | Description                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| ------- | -------- | ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Advance | High     | 8 - 10 | <ul><li>Clear cost-effectiveness potential that could substantially beat the bar (well below 150/DALY)</li><li>Strong evidence base that is readily accessible even in light desk research (RCTs, systematic reviews, or robust case studies) (Cochrane / 3iE / Etc) </li><li>Obvious tractability with a straightforward Theory of Change and few speculative assumptions</li></ul>                                                                                                        |
| Advance | Medium   | 7-8    | <ul><li>Promising cost-effectiveness that appears likely to beat the bar, though may require some assumptions</li><li>Adequate evidence base with some high-quality studies, though gaps may exist</li><li>Reasonable tractability with Theory of Change that has some speculative elements but appears logical</li></ul>                                                                                                                                                                   |
| Advance | Low      | 6-7    | <ul><li>Uncertain cost-effectiveness that might beat the bar but requires significant validation</li><li>Weak or mixed evidence base with limited high-quality studies or conflicting findings</li><li>Questionable tractability with a complex Theory of Change or multiple uncertain assumptions</li></ul>                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Reject  | Reject   | <6     | <p>(3-5) </p><ul><li>Unlikely to beat the cost-effectiveness bar even under optimistic assumptions</li><li>Very limited evidence base or evidence suggests intervention is ineffective</li><li>Major tractability concerns or a highly speculative Theory of Change</li></ul><p>(0-3)</p><ul><li>Cannot plausibly beat the cost-effectiveness bar</li><li>Evidence suggests intervention is harmful or ineffective</li><li>Fundamentally intractable or violates core assumptions</li></ul> |
|         |          |        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |

## General focus and advice&#x20;

| Focus                                                     | Less focus                                                                       |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Cost and Benefit, Burden size, Theory of Change, Evidence | Neglectedness, fit with CEIP, recruitment factors, and geographic considerations |

### Other guidance&#x20;

* Notes should be clear and legible to a third party!&#x20;
* Do not spend more than 15 minutes on an idea
* Have a bias to advance ideas that are marginal rejects where you have substantial uncertainty (advance -> low)
* Importance, Tractability and Neglectedness (ITN)  is a good heuristic, but neglectedness is tough to guess in 10 minutes, so lean on I and T.


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters:

```
GET https://research.ambitiousimpact.com/other/our-prioritization-funnel/stage-2-quick-prioritization/rubric-suggestion.md?ask=<question>&goal=<user_goal>
```

`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case.

The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.