I am trying my hardest to disambiguate ‘market/economic freedom’ from ‘unrestrained accumulation of wealth’.

You mentioned scandinavian countries specifically, but Swedish Wealth Inequality is as high as the US and higher than the UK. In general european countries raise large amounts of tax/GDP by having higher taxes on middle income people than the US, not by having higher taxes at the high end. 

and highly socialist societies such as the Scandis enjoy both higher quality and higher utility than more capitalist countries such as the United States or the UK.

While Scandinavian countries generally are less capitalist than the US or UK, the difference is small. Here are their rankings on the Economic Freedom index:

All of them are comfortably in the top quartile, and Denmark is actually above the UK in the rankings.

Apparently Germany is considering a vote to initiate the process for banning the political party AfD, which according to recent polls is the second most popular party in the country. I'm not aware of any examples of a democratic country banning such a popular political party before - the closest I can think of is Turkey banning the pro-Shari-law "Welfare Party" in 1998. My impression is that fair measures of democracy would significantly penalize such an act, maybe pushing them from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" on something like the EIU. 

In particular, if they did this it seems to me like the democratic feedback mechanism is just totally broken in Germany. As far as I'm aware, a fair-but-stylized history of recent German politics is basically:

1. Merkel admits a huge number of young male migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.
2. Integration goes worse than expected, economic costs are higher than expected, and crime rises.
3. Because of 2., voters are unhappy and want change.
4. The traditional parties do not significantly change policy.
5. Voters turn to AfD instead who are more credibly committed to change.
6. [Possibly] the other political parties ban the AfD.

If AfD are banned it seems like there just is no reliable democratic mechanism for voter preferences to determine policy in Germany.

The purported benefits of accreditation would still get delivered. 

This seems false to me, without the RSPCA's brand behind it, consumers would be less willing to pay a premium for the products, and supermarkets would be less keen to stock them.

This looks like the second time in two months you posted harsh but inaccurate criticism of a group based on confusing them with a different group. I suggest in the future you put more effort into understanding the people you are criticizing.

Is there much reason for this to be an app as opposed to a website, or an LLM?

Thanks for clarifying!

Is WHO cost-effectiveness similar to US GHD spending?

At this point I think we are reading tea leaves that the OP could easily clarify, but FWIW my interpritation was they invested more than they would have otherwise, e.g. in less specific training, because they thought this training was a secondary route to impact.

It sounds like if his org had expected mass emigration they'd have spent less time making other human capital investments as well though.