Also, in my (limited) experience as a reviewer I noticed tha many innovative grants w/ bold ideas often don't get discussed as there inevitably is a reviewer who thinks it won't work and gives it 7 putting the grant automatically in the bottom half of the pile

I wonder if this is to maintain a manageable load for discussion since (i believe) the number of grants being submitted has increased a lot in the last couple of years. It'd be nice to see hard data on this

Awesome! Does it also work in reverse? 😄