It's nice seeing many of the ideas that I have around QS to be written down and articulated so well.
The pitch explains the method for scaling the sharing of discoveries made from everyday science very well. But more emphasis should be placed on the how of making discoveries from one's observations and the value of increasing self-knowledge. There's a glancing reference to this in that methods will be shared, so it's assumed that if you adopt these methods, you too, will learn from your observations.
But people collecting data through their tools and not knowing what to do with it is a central problem. It's crucial to establish that we have an answer to that, and that what we are scaling is solid and impactful on the individual level.
The QS community is a proof-of-concept that people can make these discoveries. But it's a mistake to make it seem that we have it all figured out. There are people in the community who stopped all tracking activity because they weren't learning from their data (or perceived that they weren't learning).
What are the methods and principles of everyday science? How does it differ (and need to differ) from clinical research? The message might be that everyday science isn't randomized controlled experimentation applied to the individual. The methods that are most useful in generating self-knowledge may be antithetical to the best practices of clinical research.
People using empirical observations to understand themselves and their environment is not new, but it's never been valued and, as such, a vocabulary and articulation of principles has not been developed. Part of the pitch may be that we will develop the process of how to help people learn from their observations. We're going to identify, codify, and organize these methods so it's easier for people to learn from one another's experiences and apply them to their own lives.
I don't think that ten million discoveries can happen if we don't establish this new vocabulary and way to share not only the story, but the methods of these discoveries in a way that they can be abstracted from their particular project and applied to another.
For me, as an individual, it needs to be clear what the methods for discovery are and how I can use them. These methods need to have names so that they can be easily discussed and applied. A weakness of the Show&Tell talks is that the method is often not laid out clearly enough so that it can be applied by another person.
Everyday science is a concept that needs to exist because there is something of value that the traditional gatekeepers either missed or dismissed. We will take a leading role in recognizing and communicating that ordinary people can learn valuable things by applying empirical observation to their lives. And it may not be that kind of value that appeals to a research journal, but it's incredibly valuable to the individual and the people around them, and it demands to be understood and cultivated.
To make this idea come home, the pitch may need a concrete example of what everyday science looks like and demonstrates the value that increasing one's self-knowledge can have in bettering one's experience of life (one could be drawn from the community). With that example firmly established, you give the person being pitched something solid to imagine being multiplied by 10 million.