We all need time to read and absorb the documents, but just to pick up on one thing in the comments so far:
Obviously everything does depend on how well the franchising is done, and the choices made about the level of service and fares.
But as a general principle, franchising does NOT necessarily mean there HAS TO BE more funding. It is just a different way to arrange for competition between operators. Instead of "potential competition on the road" it becomes "competition to have the right to be on the road". It's usually done is a way where the decision-making about services moves the operator to the public authority, but actually it is possible to conceive franchising systems where the operators could retain more discretion (eg to run extra services?)
Within any sort of credible fares regime, even under a policy of somewhat lower fares the biggest source of funding for bus services remains the fares paid by passengers plus the reimbursement for concessionary travel bought for them, just as now.
Unless you believe in very radical theories of how money works , any really material increase in the level of public funding looks very unlikely, given the other pressures on public finances - see the challenges of increased funding for defence, pensions, cost of living, more affordable housing, energy transformation, etc.
So we need to not expect miracles of transformation. I expect the main benefits will be the way the franchised fares regime will be able to simplify the current confused plethora of fares. (Though I expect in doing that, there are bound to be some niches where some fares increase eg due to differences in where zone boundaries fall compared to now, or removal of route=specific fares...)