There has been a recent increase in attention toward the proper targets of evaluation in science funding policy. Specifically, some claim that we should 'fund people, not projects' to allow for increased autonomy for researchers. Critics argue that this movement unduly opens room for biases against several marginalized groups of scientists. In this paper, I contribute to this discussion by accomplishing a few related tasks. First, I analyze the idea of 'funding people, not projects' and show that it actually suggests multiple positions. Second, I propose a mechanism for evaluating researchers through narrative CVs. Finally, I respond to critics by showing that we should shift the goalposts from debiasing peer review to arrangements of science funding policies that are debiasing as a whole. In doing so, I hope to clarify and assess the movement, while pointing to ways forward.