I think the interesting consequence is that candidates can expect this to happen and with access to the same consumer-facing models, they can then optimize their CV for an ideal summary.
I broadly agree, and it's clear they are limiting the scope of curiosity to some directed areas and the long term research agenda makes me think there is an expectation of more directed follow-up. "Curiosity" is likely code for "many more 'fishing expeditions' from low friction funding with the expectation that the likely low hit rate will still have reasonable number of repeatable, translatable findings after eight years". I would personally wager that is correct.
It will be interesting to see the output of this funding mindset more reminiscent of VCs but with a timespan that biological research programs require.
I'm curious what you mean by bankable here? While I'd agree that there is idealism, it seems like reasonable efforts to cut through the catch-22 of funding nascent ideas (exemplified by the old chestnut about getting funding for work already done to do your new work under the table) and making stable career positions for folks who don't want to become a PI. I'd like to see what this really looks like after a couple years, but it doesn't seem completely naive.
That's a good point on the limitation, and to expand on your last point, an immediate demographic this could help is frontline healthcare workers and similar jobs who do get routine testing and are at higher risk in general.
PNAS recently moved to a continuous publication process so the paper comes out in the planned issue whenever ready rather than effectively coming out twice: once ahead-of-print and once in the issue.
Nobody was lynched here so anti-lynching law would not apply. Given we're discussing mobs getting riled up over the wrongs of the "other", it also seems appropriate to place the actual outcome in a less exaggerated way.
A different approach to asset allocation https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5934