Re "pivotal questions"...

Some thoughts on what The Unjournal (unjournal.org) can offer, cf existing EA-aligned research orgs (naturally, there are pros and cons)

... both in terms of defining and assessing the 'pivotal questions/claims', and in evaluating specific research findings that most inform these.

1. Non-EA-aligned expertise and engagement: We can offer mainstream (not-EA aligned) feedback and evaluation, consulting experts who might not normally come into this orbit. We can help engage non-EA academics in the priorities and considerations relevant to EAs and EA-adjacent orgs. This can leverage the tremendous academic/government infrastructure to increase the relevant research base. Our processes can provide 'outside the EA bubble' feedback and perhaps measure/build the credibility of EA-aligned work.

2. Depth and focus on specific research and research findings: Many EA ~research orgs focus on shallow research and comms. Some build models of value and cost-effectiveness targeted to EA priorities and 'axiology'. In contrast, Unjournal expert evaluations can dig deeply into the credibility of specific findings/claims that may be pivotal to these models.

3. Publicity, fostering public feedback and communication: The Unjournal is building systems for publishing and promoting our evaluations. We work to link these to the scholarly/bibliometric tools and measures people are familiar with. We hope this generates further feedback, public discussion, research, and application of this research.

I think I was unclear. I agree "second order concerns such as image and reference on the movement are valid considerations" and I even think these are often more important. (Perhaps 'indirect' is a better word than 'second order').

But it's more about how I interpreted the question

It would be better to spend an extra $100m on animal welfare than on global health

I interpreted this this a normative 'axiology' question ... if society could shift it's resources towards this by $100m, would that improve welfare?

Rather than a 'would it be strategic for EAs to publicly shift their donations in this way'. But I now see that other interpretations of this question are valid.

I agree with most of these points, but many of them don’t really argue against the forum question as posed. (Not that you were saying they do.).

The “should” in the question, in my mind, seems to rule out these second order image concerns, difficulty of garnering support, etc.

I agree, but I'm not sure that's relevant to what the question is asking? I think it presumes you have the money to spend ... or have the ability to shift the funds.

But the evidence I've seen suggests you could help far more of almost any kind of animals (e.g., chickens) avoid suffering for the same amount of money.

I support both clauses. I see a moral argument or at least a reasonable justification for favoring humans over animals, holding measured 'ability to feel pain constant'.

However, I'm convinced by the evidence that funding to support programs like corporate campaigns for cage-free eggs are likely to be effective, and have vastly higher welfare gains per dollar, by most reasonable measures of relative chicken/human welfare.

The animal welfare space has very little funding and $100 million is likely to make a substantial positive difference, both directly/immediately, and in shifting cultural and political attitudes.

Thinking of trying to re-host innovationsinfundraising.org, which I stopped hosting maybe a year ago. Not sure I have the bandwidth to keep it updated as a ~living literature review, but the content might be helpful to people.

You can see some of the key content on the wayback machine, e.g., the table of evidence/consideration of potential tools . 

Any thoughts/interest in using this or collaborating on a revival (focused on the effective giving part)?

This, along with the barriers to effective giving might (or might not) also be a candidate for Open Phil's living literature project. (The latter is still hosted, some overlaps with @Lucius Caviola  and @Stefan_Schubert's book).

Some other ways you can engage with this

• See “how to get involved”. You can suggest research we should consider, submit your own research, or sign up to join our team or our evaluator pool
• If you see research in the database you would particularly recommend that we focus on, or you want to briefly share some notes about the research, please fill out the relevant fields in our ‘suggest research’ form, flagging this with “[External suggestion]” in the ‘label’ field.

Perhaps someone would want to champion this and get EA ~Meta or EA community funds to cover the cost of their time and tech in maintaining this? As @Midtermist12 says, I think the investment would be worth it, both for the use of this info itself, and for the knock-on effects for future collaboration. 

This seems potentially important for initiatives like @Brad West's Profit For Good initiative.  
A warm list for this ... Earning to give/EA people in relevant businesses.