This evaluation assesses the decision-making processes that guided the evolution of the application of the Fund's mandate, the criteria and principles used to operationalize engagement in newer policy areas, and the coherence of the Fund's framework for engaging with partners. It finds that the systematic widening of the Fund's areas of work is posing adaptation challenges, necessitating trade-offs, and overburdening staff within a context of budgetary and expertise constraints. The evaluation offers a framework for approaching these challenges that is centered on a trilemma that exposes the tension between the steady expansion of the Fund's scope of work, its limited resources, and the need to maintain the high quality and value-added of its policy advice. It identifies several problems within this framework, including the ad hoc decision-making process for engaging in newer policy areas, which lacks a longer-term strategic anchor. Furthermore, decisions on policies, resources, and risks were taken in a piecemeal manner, without due consideration for crossed effects. It also identifies several open questions regarding the depth and frequency of the Fund's engagement in newer policy areas and the lack of an institutional approach to Fund partnerships.The evaluation proposes classifying newer policy areas across a spectrum of recommended engagement, ranging from signaling their macrocriticality while leaving deeper assessments to other institutions, to in-depth high-frequency engagement. It also offers four main recommendations: (i) developing an inclusive Fund-wide institutional strategy for engagement in newer policy areas that better links decisions related to scope, resources, and risks; (ii) producing budget data that enables the tracking of Fund activities and operations by policy area; (iii) updating the 2022 Guidance Note for Surveillance to enhance the clarity of principles for engagement; and (iv) adopting a Board-approved high-level Statement of Principles for engagement with partners.