The article goes into more details for each topic, below is a summary of them. What do you think? Did they miss anything? Would you change anything?

Operational checklist: Guiding questions for knowledge brokering in evidence-based ecosystem restoration

1. Ensure there are systems for knowledge brokering in the restoration context

(1.1) Which actors (including organisations, stakeholders, and rights and knowledge holders) are providing knowledge brokering systems?

(1.2) To what extent are these systems legitimate and participatory, and how effective are they in generating trustworthy outcomes?

(1.3) How can these systems support the local need for evidence-based restoration in the long-term?

1. Identify priority restoration outcomes and associated challenges

(2.1) Who is affected by restoration initiatives and who has decision authority?

(2.2) Which stakeholders and rights and knowledge holders must be involved to define goals and to identify risks and acceptable trade-offs?

(2.3) What are the restoration targets and challenges that should be informed by existing evidence?

1. Find out what evidence exists, at what scale, and in what form

(3.1) What evidence types underpin the initiative: global syntheses, regional studies, local monitoring, practitioner knowledge, Indigenous and local knowledge, or all of these?

(3.2) Which are the inclusion criteria for targeted evidence (biome, intervention type, scale, outcomes, study design, socioeconomic groups, expected benefits)?

(3.3) How can available evidence be gathered from diverse knowledge systems?

1. Assess the robustness of evidence and potential for bias

(4.1) How is the evidence structured (e.g. experimental, observational) and what main sources of bias or confounding are present?

(4.2) Do the effects hold steady across multiple scenarios and scales, or are they tied to specific factors (climate, socioeconomic, or ecological conditions)?

(4.3) How should the confidence in this evidence be rated (e.g. strength of effects, community recognition, or the reliability of practitioner experience)?

1. Assess expected effects and feasibility of application

(5.1) At what level do study variables reflect local expertise regarding the factors that drive restoration success?

(5.2) How closely does the scale of the study align with that at which decisions will be made, and how transferable are the findings to the local context?

(5.3) What methods will be used to synthesise the evidence, and what is the strategy for communicating these findings so that decision-makers can put them into action?

1. Integrate diverse worldviews and knowledge systems

(6.1) Which are the available tools to integrate multiple views and knowledge about the problem with equity?

(6.2) What are the jointly agreed indicators of success, and who will monitor them?

(6.3) How will disagreements be documented and revisited as new evidence emerges over time?

1. Examine the policy context

(7.1) Which legal and policy requirements define what must/should/cannot be done?

(7.2) Which entities hold the formal authority and which has the practical capacity to enforce these policies at the targeted scales?

(7.3) What incentives or disincentives (payments, compliance, opportunity costs) shape feasibility and equity?

1. Future-proof restoration

(8.1) What pressures could derail implementation and change outcomes (climate trends/extremes, fire, invasions, land-use change), and over what time horizon?

(8.2) What indicators available in the literature provide early warning that trajectories are diverging from expectations?

(8.3) When should evidence trigger changes in actions, targets, site prioritisation, or governance?

1. Address potential trade-offs in restoration

(9.1) What services or outcomes might decline throughout restoration, for whom, and for how long?

(9.2) At what scale do trade-offs occur (plot, farm, catchment, landscape), and who do they affect?

(9.3) How should information be effectively communicated to ensure stakeholders and rights and knowledge holders are fully aware of potential impacts and possible mitigation measures before and during implementation?

1. Foster research and practice collaborations to co-produce actionable evidence and fill knowledge gaps

(10.1) Which evidence gaps most critically hinder decision-making (e.g. considering the scale, urgency, and potential risks)?

(10.2) Which gaps can be filled through internal monitoring or adaptive management, and which require broader efforts like new co-designed studies or living labs?

(10.3) How is the evidence base kept current, and what specific triggers lead to a formal revision of recommendations or a shift in resource allocation?