Following the (divergent) leads of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum there is increasing interest among policy analysts, including health economists, in widening the maximand in option/strategy/policy evaluation. [Biblio file here ] Annalisa provides an excellent disciplining focus for any qualitative capabilities discourse, in the sense that unless the contributor/s can adumbrate their positions in this broad framework it is unlikely that they will be capable of contributing seriously to an evaluation that must go beyond verbal quantifications of magnitudes. But it can do much more. Annalisa can not only provide the framework for the development of a ‘capability index’ and ‘mean tariff’ at a population level – though more sophisticated methods may be preferred for this task - it can also enable the simple but vital tailoring of any resulting index/tariff to individuals and subgroups (especially through its dynamic weight-changing capability). Such a tailoring facility seems mandated by the underlying commitment of the capabilities approach to individual choice, in respect to both capability selection and weighting and to the decision by the individual of whether to turn capability into functional achievement. (Given the ‘ethical individualism’ of the capacities approach it is inappropriate to interpret this individual variation simply as heterogeneity within a population.) Annalisa can even provide the practical framework for the evaluation of procedures to elicit capabilities. The snapshots illustrate its use in a UK-based study (Grewal 2006; Flynn 2007) [alt file here ]and the procedural criteria of Ingrid Robeyns (2005) - in the latter case Ratings are merely hypothetical inferences from the texts [alt file here ]. The third is Nussbaum's 10 capability set [alt file here ] and the last an 8 attribute one derived from the empirical attempt by Anand et al 2005 to implement Nussbaum in the UK        [alt file here ]