> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.catalystcontributors.org/funding-categorisation-analysis/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.catalystcontributors.org/funding-categorisation-analysis/historical-analysis-and-comparisons/funding-access-for-each-focus-area/fund-9.md).
# Fund 9
### Funding access for different focus areas
### **Funding categories equivalent**
After reviewing the [data covered in the methodology](/funding-categorisation-analysis/historical-analysis-and-comparisons/funding-access-for-each-focus-area/methodology-data-and-feedback.md) for fund 9 a similar funding categorisation outcome could have been achieved with funding categories as an alternative categorisation approach by applying the following budget weightings:
* **Community & Outreach** - 5%
* **Products & Integrations** - 70%
* **Governance & Identity** - 10%
* **Development & Infrastructure** - 15%
### Observations
**Repeated categorisations**
One issue for fund 9 was the inclusion of a repeated categorisation with a different budget weighting. The issue was raised during the process that this outcome could occur however the repeated categorisation couldn’t be removed after assessment had started. Although this problem can be fixed in the process it does highlight the importance of democratic budget weighting votes to determine the outcome of how much funding is allocated to certain categorisations. Currently challenge settings do not do this as they give unilateral control of the budget weighting decision to the person or team who submit the challenge setting.
**Similar categorisations**
Similar categorisations are a bigger issue than repeated categorisations which are easy to avoid by just merging the categorisations. Similar categorisations have differences but overlap in what they focus on. An example in this round was [The Great Migration (from Ethereum)](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBw7N) and [Cross-Chain Collaboration](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBunq) which although have different scopes both include efforts for the migration of Ethereum projects onto Cardano. The intention could be for these to be used very separately however the reality of the result is increased complexity for the proposer needing to interpret how to use each of the categorisations. Another issue with the cross chain related categorisations is they in some instances are a subset of the [Products & Integrations](https://app.ideascale.com/t/UM5UZBunL) which adds further confusion as many of these proposals could be submitted in multiple categorisations.
---
# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.
## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:
```
GET https://docs.catalystcontributors.org/funding-categorisation-analysis/historical-analysis-and-comparisons/funding-access-for-each-focus-area/fund-9.md?ask=&goal=
```
`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.