Aside from quantifying how much you could achieve with extra funding, it might be worth thinking about what might make this work even more exciting from either an impact or cost-effectiveness perspective. For example - would this phage technology be used against a novel engineered virus? How quickly would a lab be able to create a ready-for-use a therapeutic phage product to a completely new virus in a pandemic setting, if at all possible? This would expand your possible intervention audience from [anyone affected by a resistant organism] to [anyone in the future who could be affected by a major pandemic].  On the other hand, it's also useful to think about what might make this work even less exciting from an impact / cost-effectiveness perspective. Why doesn't this technology already exist in the context you're in? What are some barriers in making this happen? Are there better alternatives that exist for AMR / fungal infections? One example that comes to mind is - what would be a reason hospitals would prefer a phage-based cleaning product for cleaning hospital environments over say, bleach / other disinfectants that are currently being used? That being said, I think EA objectives of trying to quantify impact and be as cost effective as we can be are ideas that should be useful even for cause areas that don't currently hit various organisations' funding bars. I'm happy to briefly look over a proposal and give fairly general feedback from my understanding of an EA lens (though I neither have expertise in phages nor a deep understanding of how the funding process works) - feel free to DM me if you think this would be useful, otherwise all the best!