Thank you @YUTA_Oishi for reducing this to a somehow sane amount!
Even for the ones that you left in, I am still not comfortable with giving the decision to pay those out to a “committee” inside Intersect.
As sketched in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-treasury-withdrawals-3, I want dReps to see a concrete plan what should be done by a concrete entity to receive the ADA in the end before anything is withdrawn from the treasury.
For example, for all the “education” and “tooling” items, we could also argue that whoever wants to be a dRep or even CC member should already have the competence to educate themselves and use the existing tools for their job. If they do not have that, how should they be able to do their due diligence on the things proposed to them? You need to have a deep technical understanding of Cardano to not be sold incoherent stuff by authors of governance action proposals.
If what is proposed is a clearly valuable tool or, e.g., detailed documentation rather than individual trainings, I might be more positive about it, but giving a blanket green light that the committee can pay for whatever it thinks is good governance education? Not so much.