 The problem that we've been trying to address now for many decades, but it really accelerated during COVID-19, was how do we get decision makers to use evidence systematically and transparently to address societal challenges. And during COVID-19, two of the big challenges that we saw were these reliance on preprints, squeaky wheel experts, one-off and old-school expert panels, instead of the best evidence. And we also saw reliance only on certain forms of evidence. Data analytics, modeling, for example, getting a lot of traction, but other forms of evidence that are critically important for decision-making weren't at the table. And so what we began to do is try to figure out how do we formalize and strengthen evidence support systems in every country and leverage these new abilities we have to provide timely demand-driven evidence support in timelines as short as hours and days, and how do we better leverage global public goods like living evidence syntheses that slot the new evidence in based on its quality, and as the context and evidence evolves, then we can draw on different insights from the evidence. I think the most innovative aspect of what our 25 commissioners who were part of the Global Commission on Evidence to address societal challenges came up with was this idea of formalizing and strengthening evidence support systems, and they made the distinction between that and the research system focused on things like peer-reviewed publications and the innovation system focused on things like commercialization. The evidence support system is about, in a timely and responsive way, getting the best evidence to decision-makers. That means in part matching the right form of evidence to the question being asked, if it's about a problem, it may be data analytics, if it's about selecting options, it may be evaluation. It also means combining the best national evidence, data analytics, modeling, evaluation, behavioral implementation research, qualitative insights with the best evidence from around the globe, and asking the question, how does it vary by groups and contacts? And that's typically in the form of evidence syntheses. Those are some of the things that the commissioners said would be game-changers if we're really going to use evidence more systematically. The Evidence Commission Secretariat is currently working with 12 countries and we have plans to work with many others, so if you're not one of those countries, we would be delighted to hear from you. To conduct assessments of domestic evidence support systems, we want to work with partners at the country level to understand what's going well, that needs to be systematized and scaled up when it comes to evidence support, and what are the key gaps that need to be filled. It's a very pragmatic exercise. What are the key actions that need to be taken now? To me, this is the best chance we've had in my 25 years of working in the field of supporting decision-making with best evidence. If we really want to address societal challenges, if we really want to deliver on the promise of the Sustainable Development Goals, then we need to find ways to formalize and strengthen domestic evidence support systems.