I was going to relegate this to just a sentence, but adding the explanation to the card makes it more viable, I think. Let me know if you think otherwise.

I'm rather agnostic about including the plot, since it now takes up less space, but I think we could simplify the language a bit. I think we could reduce the whole thing down to:

"As part of an expert elicitation exercise, a group of subject matter experts predicted that on average 33% (80% prediction interval 2% to 60%) of this type of activity could be mitigated Nationally by 2039/40."

I've gone kind of halfway house on this for now. The chart is redundant, so have removed (rendering and the plot code itself). I've kept separate the background/results paras for technical ease when generating output.

I've added two more issues:

• Add check action #104 because this PR breaks tests and I'll fix them when I add the GitHub action
• Cosider other solutions to the NEE details #105 because we can return to this in the future

I've gone kind of halfway house on this for now. The chart is redundant, so have removed (rendering and the plot code itself). I've kept Separate the background/results paras for technical ease when generating output.

I've added two more issues:

• Add check action #104 because this PR breaks tests and I'll fix them when I add the GitHub action
• Cosider other solutions to the NEE details #105 because we can return to this in the future

I like the two separate sentences actually, and just to make clear, multiple users want to see the % mitigated, not the % that will still be done in horizon year - getting myself muddled with what our toy numbers mean!

Good spot, I had actually meant to invert (100 - NEE value). This matches the default in the compare mitigation predictions app. Have pushed this change now.

Have now redeployed.