*

Infrastructure, like sewage treatment plants, might be harder to justify using purely BAP-based data. Same with visionary projects, like space exploration, particle supercolliders, or sweeping civic reforms based on ideologies. These projects are usually meaningful to people, so they'd be somewhat supported by BAP-based data. But they may deserve more support than that.

Much is diffusely-beneficial, but no longer require attention. A naive approach to DAPs would undercount this.

I don't think we can gather this data directly without sacrificing grounded, local, and specific. But there are ways to gather it indirectly: For every person like Brenda at $t=3$, there'll be one for whom "being an explorer of what it is to be alive" still requires attention. By connecting DAPs across a population, we can account for much of this material.

These non-attentional-but-important things are, I think, closely related to DAPs / meaning nuggets. If we wanted to collect them, we could ask people hypotheticals. If you suddenly didn't have X, in which contexts would you be attending to getting it?

In many cases of using the word value, it makes sense to call these things values, because they're very important to people. There's a strong argument to be made that, if values are to form the basis of an economic system, or some prioritization of projects, these things must be strongly prioritized and incentivized.

I don't have a way to collect information about these "potential meaning nuggets". But I guess collecting DAPs might be a good first step.