There can be ties at any point during the iterative elimination process, not just during the final round (if anything they are more likely in earlier rounds).

From the link above:

For small IRV elections, there can be frequent last-place ties that prevent clear bottom elimination, so it's critically important to have a clear tie-breaking mechanism in jurisdictions with few voters.

If there are more than 3 candidates with any votes, eliminate the least popular, and redistribute those votes according to the voters' next favourite choice.

What happens if there's a tie? E.g. if there are 4 candidates with 30, 20, 10, 10 votes each.

I guess it's unlikely to be determinant in practice but might be worth stating just in case.

ETA: https://electowiki.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Handling_ties_in_IRV_elections 

Having read your reflections, I'm still curious as to why you don't think non-OpenPhil donors should give to farmed animal welfare, if you feel comfortable sharing it publicly. I guessed four options, ordered from most to least likely, but I might have misunderstood the post

1. We should donate to wild animal welfare instead, as it's more cost-effective
2. There are no donation opportunities that counterfactually help a significant amount of farmed animals
3. There is no strong moral obligation to improve future lives, and donations to farmed animal welfare necessarily improve future lives, as farmed animal lives are very short
4. Tomasik-style arguments on the impact of animal farming on the amount of wild animal suffering

Is it a combination of these? As a concrete example, I'm curious if you believe that the Shrimp Welfare Project shouldn't be funded, should be funded by "non-EA" donors, or will be funded anyway and donors shouldn't worry about it.

By the way, thank you for nudging towards sharing evaluations with the evaluated organization before posting, I think it's a really valuable norm.

Not sure who to alert to this

I think it's probably best to alert whoever sent you the survey, I wouldn't rely on them noticing quick takes on the EA Forum

Did you mean to link to "Impact Maximisation through Supported Regranting: a Funding Strategy Hack"?

Expanding acronyms for readers who might not know them:

EAA: Effective Animal Advocacy
 
ICAPs: Importance and Counterfactuals-Adjusted Placements, an Animal Advocacy Careers specific metric

Thanks for writing this! I would be curious to know what you think about this 4 years later, and now that interest rates are much higher.

I would find it valuable if you could share some public version of the spreadsheet, or if you quickly remember some specific examples. Hiring/contracting is very hard but almost always necessary.

I'm probably less informed than you are, but depending on what you mean by "sources of funders" I disagree.

I think if you can demonstrate getting valuable results and want funding to scale, people will be happy to fund you. My impression is that several people influencing >=6 digit allocations are genuinely looking for projects to fund that can be even more effective than what they're currently funding.

I'm fairly confident that if anyone hosted a conference or online program, got good results, had a clear theory of change with measurable metrics, and gradually asked for funding to scale, people will be happy to fund that.

I get exactly the same: it's the upvote/reactions notifications, not the replies