I think this is moving in the right direction, however, I’m not sure how it is any different that what AIP - 3 [Non-Constitutional] Fund the Arbitrum Grants Framework Proposal Milestone 1 - #9 by Frisson is posting. Most of that proposal is to design the best way to answer all of the questions you put above.
It seems that you’re considering service providers to be receiving funds that are not “grants”. Is this correct?
Perhaps the glossary is undefined so we talk past each other in some ways.
I’d consider “Program Managers” to be “Service providers” which are given responsibility for directing funds to provide an outcome for the community.
The issue I’ve seen across DAOs is that the DAO delegates don’t have time to do the above work. That brings us to the chicken and egg problem which the AIP-3 is attempting to solve.