Add a sentence to Implementation Guidance so that it reads as follows:

Implementation Guidance: Target potential applicants from the not-for-profit sector, social enterprises and/or community organizations from under-served and developing regions and countries. This should not exclude any entities from outreach efforts, recognising the goal is to get as many qualifying applicants as possible.

Rationale: There is a risk that the intention to not exclude any entities from outreach efforts will be lost if it is not specifically included in the Implementation Guidance. 

Add the following text:

The rate of delegation for supported applicants should be statistically insignificant to the rate of delegation of unsupported applicants. Note, this should be considered for strings in contention sets and strings not in contention set, as well as for the aggregate totals. There should also be separate consideration of strings that pass Initial Evaluation, with subcategories of applications subject to Objections and not subject to Objections. (See attachment for a possible table)

Metrics to measure success: the rates of delegation will not be statistically significant between supported and unsupported applicants. Note, there should also be an assessment of whether there is sufficient data to rely on the statistics produced.

Rationale: Comparing rates of delegation allows for consideration as to whether the ASP impacts the likely success of an applicant. Pulling out separate subcategories of applications may also be helpful in assessing the points of tension for supported applications. It also avoids the total reliance on guessing the number of applications in the next round.

Table setting out possible metrics of success for recommendation 5 from the GGP.

Com Laude appreciates the thought and effort done by the GGP so far. We have offered additional metrics for success to be considered by the GGP, so that the efficacy of the support provided to applicants can be evaluated in the future.