You are correct

I was a rotator until August and I had to RWR Cat B some proposals that had paneled well and were in consideration for funding.

There is a new process in place since last ~April called "RWR cat B" which is "return without review." This can be applied even after it had been reviewed by a panel if the proposal is not aligned with new federal/NSF prioritites (e.g., no DEI). This is beyond compliance checking.

Yes 24-1. Thanks. Ironically that typo was in text that I copied from an announcement and I did not catch it!

Many red states are already destroying their institutions of #HigherEd and tenure (see IN). If this gains traction on the national level, knowledge generation in the US is doomed.

But at the same time, they *need* our research and knowledge generation.

Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Of particular now is the change to "minimum number of reviewers", increases to caps for planning, RAPID, and EAGER proposals among other things.

Pro tip: always, always refer to the PAPPG when preparing a proposal. Many times when you reach out to a PO with a question they will refer to the PAPPG

I'm working on securing funding right now to rebuild my research program, and NSF funding will hopefully always be part of that for me. But I'm also trying to rethink how I get that funding and other potential sources to do my work

Having just recently come from serving at NSF, I don't see "getting back to normal" on the near horizon. PIs need to rethink proposals and funding, not just because of more competition and less $$, but also because of new solicitations. Effects of the "great perturbation" will persist for some time