Hi Marisa,

Thank you so much for the contributions you have added in the proposal yesterday. I saw you working until late night. I really appreciate that. Just a couple of quick questions:

1. There is some jargon that I think might be undesirable in this type of proposal, because we have no idea who is going to review it and whether they will be able to understand it. Concepts like “bundling” and “equity estimands” may not resonate and I think we would be better off providing a plain language version, if at all possible. If you have any preferences as to how they could be adapted, please, let me know.
2. I may will have to shorten the text you have added a little bit, because we are well over the page limit at the moment (at least for section 1), but I will try to preserve the meaning.
3. Going back to the point about randomisation, on which we had also an email exchange previously, I don’t think  we will be able to randomise schools (certainly not in all countries), and we have already concluded in GHRU that randomising classes or individuals is not feasible because of potential contamination. However, I do want to ensure we adopt a “causal inference” framework, so we will most likely use an observational design with a comparator group of schools, selected to ensure the applicability of a difference in difference approach. I will add a description of the evaluation approach in the methodology section this afternoon, and I will spell this out there, but I will also remove the references to randomisation in the rest of the proposal for consistency.

Please, let me know if you have any comments on the above.

Thank you again.

Franco