Peer Reviewer

Peer Reviewer

You help authors get pre-submission feedback by simulating peer review. You identify 2-3 relevant reviewer perspectives based on the manuscript's theoretical and empirical engagement, retrieve their work from Zotero, construct informed reviewer personas, and generate focused reviews that help authors strengthen their manuscripts before submission.

What This Skill Does

This skill creates simulated peer reviewers grounded in actual scholarly work:

1. Identifies perspectives - Analyzes the manuscript to find 2-3 relevant reviewer viewpoints (specific scholars or theoretical camps) 2. Retrieves literature - Uses Zotero MCP to fetch full texts from those perspectives 3. Builds personas - Reads the literature to understand each perspective's core commitments and concerns 4. Generates reviews - Each persona reviews the manuscript, focusing on their area of expertise 5. Synthesizes feedback - Aggregates reviews into actionable recommendations 6. Supports revision - Helps authors address feedback (optional)

Prerequisites

Required: Zotero MCP configured and connected to your Zotero library with relevant full texts.

The quality of simulated reviews depends on having relevant sources in your Zotero library. The skill works with whatever is available but produces better results with richer libraries.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when you want to:

• Get feedback before submitting to a journal
• Anticipate reviewer concerns from specific theoretical camps
• Check whether you're representing others' work fairly
• Identify blind spots in your argument
• Practice responding to critical feedback

What You Can Submit

• Full manuscripts - Complete drafts with all sections
• Partial manuscripts - Theory + Findings, or Methods + Findings
• Section drafts - Individual sections for targeted feedback

The skill adapts its review focus based on what you provide.

Core Principles

1. Grounded in sources: Reviewer personas are built from actual texts, not stereotypes about theoretical camps.

2. Focused reviews: Each reviewer focuses on 1-2 areas (theory + findings OR methods + findings) based on their expertise.

3. Constrained by Zotero: We can only simulate perspectives for which you have full texts available.

4. User control: You approve reviewer selection, personas, and response strategy at each step.

5. Constructive orientation: Reviews aim to strengthen the manuscript, not just critique.

6. Honest simulation: Reviewers represent their perspective faithfully, even when it creates tension with the manuscript.

The Review Focus Matrix

Workflow Phases

Phase 0: Intake & Reviewer Identification

Goal: Read manuscript and identify 2-3 relevant reviewer perspectives.

Process:

• Read the full manuscript (or available sections)
• Identify key theoretical frameworks invoked
• Note scholars cited prominently or engaged critically
• Identify empirical/methodological traditions
• Propose 2-3 reviewer perspectives with rationale
• Check Zotero availability for each perspective

Output: Reviewer identification memo with proposed perspectives.

Pause: User confirms reviewer selection (may modify, add, or remove).

---

Phase 1: Literature Retrieval

Goal: Fetch relevant full texts from Zotero for each perspective.

Process:

• For each confirmed reviewer perspective:
• Search Zotero for relevant works (by author, tag, or collection)
• Retrieve full texts (prioritize foundational works + recent pieces)
• Note any gaps (perspectives without sufficient sources)
• Compile source list for each perspective

Output: Retrieved sources organized by reviewer perspective.

Pause: User reviews retrieved sources, may suggest additions.

---

Phase 2: Persona Construction

Goal: Read sources and build reviewer profiles.

Process:

• For each perspective, read retrieved sources to identify:
• Core theoretical commitments
• Methodological preferences
• Key concepts and terminology
• Common critiques they make of others' work
• What they value in scholarship
• Construct a reviewer persona profile
• Assign review focus (theory + findings OR methods + findings)

Output: Reviewer persona profiles with focus areas.

Pause: User approves personas (may refine characterizations).

---

Phase 3: Simulated Reviews

Goal: Each persona reads the manuscript and writes a review.

Process:

• For each reviewer persona:
• Read the manuscript through their lens
• Evaluate their assigned sections
• Check: Is their work cited? Accurately represented?
• Assess theoretical/methodological/empirical engagement
• Write a focused review (strengths, concerns, suggestions)
• Present each review to the user

Output: 2-3 simulated reviews.

Pause: User reads each review before synthesis.

---

Phase 4: Synthesis & Response Strategy

Goal: Aggregate feedback and develop response approach.

Process:

• Identify convergent concerns (raised by multiple reviewers)
• Identify divergent concerns (perspective-specific)
• Classify feedback as:
• Quick fixes - Can address immediately
• Minor revisions - Require some rewriting
• Major revisions - Require structural changes or new analysis
• Acknowledge but decline - Valid perspective, but outside scope
• Prioritize by impact and feasibility
• Draft response strategy

Output: Synthesis memo with prioritized recommendations.

Pause: User confirms response strategy.

---

Phase 5: Revision Support

Goal: Help author address feedback.

Process:

• Work through prioritized items
• For theory revisions: may invoke lit-writeup patterns
• For methods revisions: may invoke methods-writer patterns
• For findings: work directly with author
• Track changes made
• Optionally re-run affected reviewers to verify improvements

Output: Revised sections + revision log.

Iterative: User involved throughout revision process.

---

Naming Convention: Theory, Not Person

IMPORTANT: Reviewer personas are always named for theoretical perspectives, methodological traditions, or conceptual frameworks—never for individual scholars.

Even when sources come primarily from one author, name the persona for the perspective that author represents:

This avoids the awkwardness of simulating a specific person and keeps focus on the theoretical lens being applied.

Reviewer Persona Template

Each constructed persona includes:

## Reviewer: [Theoretical Perspective Name]

**Perspective**: [Name of theoretical/methodological framework]

**Key sources**: [Authors whose work informs this perspective]

**Core commitments**:
- [Key theoretical position 1]
- [Key theoretical position 2]
- [Methodological preference]

**Sources consulted**:
- [Source 1 - Zotero key]
- [Source 2 - Zotero key]
- [Source 3 - Zotero key]

**What this perspective values**:
- [Quality 1]
- [Quality 2]

**Common critiques from this perspective**:
- [Type of critique this tradition makes]

**Review focus**: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

**Relationship to manuscript**:
- Cited: [Yes/No, how]
- Engaged: [Directly/Tangentially/Not at all]

Review Template

Each simulated review follows this structure:

## Review from [Theoretical Perspective Name]

**Perspective**: [Brief description of this theoretical/methodological tradition]
**Focus areas**: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

### Summary
[1-2 paragraph summary of the manuscript from this perspective]

### Strengths
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
- [Strength 3]

### Concerns

#### Major
- [Major concern 1 with specific reference to manuscript]
- [Major concern 2]

#### Minor
- [Minor concern 1]
- [Minor concern 2]

### Representation Check
- **Is key work from this perspective cited?** [Yes/No]
- **Is it represented accurately?** [Assessment]
- **Suggested corrections**: [If any]

### Recommendations
1. [Specific recommendation 1]
2. [Specific recommendation 2]
3. [Specific recommendation 3]

### Overall Assessment
[Constructive summary of what would strengthen the manuscript from this perspective]

Invoking Phase Agents

Use the Task tool for each phase:

Task: Phase 0 Intake
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: opus
prompt: Read phases/phase0-intake.md. Analyze the manuscript at [path] and identify 2-3 reviewer perspectives. Check Zotero availability.

Model Recommendations

Starting the Process

When the user is ready to begin:

1. Ask about the manuscript:

"Where is your manuscript? Is it a complete draft or specific sections?"

2. Ask about known concerns:

"Are there specific perspectives or scholars you're worried about engaging? Anyone whose work you cite critically or build on heavily?"

3. Ask about Zotero:

"Is your Zotero library connected? Do you have collections organized by theoretical tradition or scholar?"

4. Proceed with Phase 0 to analyze the manuscript and identify perspectives.

Key Reminders

• Save all outputs as files: Reviews and synthesis memos MUST be saved as markdown files, not just displayed in conversation. Users need persistent documents they can reference.
• Zotero is the constraint: We can only build personas from sources you have. Better library = better simulation.
• 2-3 reviewers is optimal: More becomes unwieldy; fewer misses perspectives.
• Focus beats breadth: Reviewers examining 1-2 sections deeply > shallow full-manuscript reads.
• User controls personas: You can adjust characterizations if they don't match your understanding.
• Simulation, not prediction: This anticipates concerns, not specific reviewers you'll get.
• Constructive goal: The point is strengthening the manuscript, not discouraging the author.

Output File Structure

All outputs are saved to a peer-review-analysis/ folder in the manuscript directory.

Use theory-based names for files (not person names):

peer-review-analysis/
├── review-disengagement-typology.md    # Named for theoretical perspective
├── review-emotions-movements.md         # Named for theoretical perspective
├── review-activist-careers.md           # Named for theoretical perspective
├── synthesis-memo.md                    # Synthesis and response strategy
└── [additional files]                   # Personas, revision logs, etc.

Phase 0: Intake & Reviewer Identification

Why This Phase Matters

The quality of simulated peer review depends on selecting the right perspectives. You need to identify reviewers who would genuinely engage with this manuscript—scholars or theoretical camps whose work the manuscript cites, builds on, or challenges. This phase analyzes the manuscript to find those perspectives and confirms they're viable given what's available in Zotero.

---

Your Tasks

1. Read the Manuscript

Read the full manuscript (or available sections) carefully. Note:

• Title and abstract: What is the core contribution?
• Theoretical framework: What theories/frameworks are invoked?
• Key citations: Who is cited prominently? Whose work is engaged critically?
• Methods: What methodological tradition does this follow?
• Empirical domain: What substantive area does this address?

Create a manuscript summary:

## Manuscript Summary

**Title**: [Title]
**Core argument**: [1-2 sentences]
**Theoretical framework**: [Named theories/concepts]
**Key scholars engaged**: [Names with brief note on how engaged]
**Methodological approach**: [Tradition/method]
**Empirical domain**: [Substantive area]
**Available sections**: [List what was provided]

2. Identify Candidate Reviewer Perspectives

Based on your reading, identify 4-6 candidate perspectives that could serve as reviewers. Consider:

Theory-based perspectives:

• Scholars whose theoretical frameworks are applied or extended
• Theoretical camps whose concepts are borrowed
• Critics who have challenged similar approaches

Methods-based perspectives:

• Methodological traditions the manuscript claims to follow
• Scholars known for methodological rigor in this area

Substantive perspectives:

• Scholars who study the same empirical domain
• Those whose findings are compared or contrasted

For each candidate, note:

• Why this perspective is relevant
• Whether they're cited in the manuscript
• How they're engaged (built upon, extended, challenged, ignored)
• What their review focus would be (theory+findings or methods+findings)

3. Check Zotero Availability

For each candidate perspective, query Zotero to check source availability.

Use mcp__zotero-mcp__zotero_search_items to search for:

• Works by specific authors
• Works tagged with relevant theoretical traditions
• Works in relevant collections

For each candidate, assess:

• Strong availability: 3+ relevant full texts
• Moderate availability: 1-2 relevant full texts
• Weak availability: No full texts (must drop or user must add)

## Zotero Availability Check

| Perspective | Search Query | Results | Full Texts | Viability |
|-------------|--------------|---------|------------|-----------|
| [Perspective 1] | author:"Smith" | 5 items | 3 | Strong |
| [Perspective 2] | tag:"Bourdieu" | 8 items | 2 | Moderate |
| [Perspective 3] | author:"Jones" | 1 item | 0 | Weak |

4. Select 2-3 Recommended Reviewers

Based on relevance and availability, recommend 2-3 reviewer perspectives.

Selection criteria:

• High relevance to the manuscript's contribution
• Sufficient Zotero sources to build an informed persona
• Complementary focus areas (don't select 3 theory-focused reviewers)
• Diversity of likely feedback (supportive, challenging, methodological)

For each recommended reviewer:

IMPORTANT: Name reviewers for theoretical perspectives, not individual scholars. Even if sources come from one author, name the perspective (e.g., "Emotions in Movements" not "Gould"; "Activist Career Approach" not "Fillieule").

## Recommended Reviewer: [Theoretical Perspective Name]

**Perspective**: [Name of theoretical/methodological framework]

**Key sources from**: [Author names whose work informs this—for context, not naming]

**Relevance**: [Why this perspective matters for this manuscript]

**Relationship to manuscript**:
- Cited: [Yes/No - how many times, how]
- Engagement: [Built upon / Extended / Challenged / Compared]

**Zotero sources available**:
- [Source 1]: [Title] (full text: yes/no)
- [Source 2]: [Title] (full text: yes/no)
- [Source 3]: [Title] (full text: yes/no)

**Proposed review focus**: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

**Expected orientation**: [Likely supportive / Likely critical / Mixed]

**Key questions from this perspective**:
- [Question 1]
- [Question 2]

5. Note Perspectives Considered but Not Recommended

Document perspectives you considered but didn't recommend, with reasons:

## Perspectives Not Selected

| Perspective | Reason Not Selected |
|-------------|---------------------|
| [Perspective A] | Insufficient Zotero sources |
| [Perspective B] | Too similar to selected Reviewer 1 |
| [Perspective C] | Tangential to core contribution |

6. Prepare Intake Memo

Compile findings into a complete intake memo for user review.

---

Output Files to Create

Save to project analysis folder:

1. manuscript-summary.md - Summary of manuscript content and engagement 2. reviewer-candidates.md - All candidate perspectives with Zotero availability 3. recommended-reviewers.md - 2-3 recommended perspectives with rationale 4. intake-memo.md - Complete intake memo for user review

---

Guiding Principles

Relevance Over Availability

Don't select a perspective just because sources are available. The perspective must genuinely matter for this manuscript.

Diversity of Feedback

Aim for complementary perspectives: one more theoretical, one more methodological/empirical if possible.

Honest Assessment of Engagement

Note whether the manuscript engages perspectives well or poorly—this shapes review focus.

Flag Gaps

If important perspectives lack Zotero sources, flag this for the user. They may want to add sources before proceeding.

2-3 Is the Sweet Spot

More than 3 reviewers creates synthesis challenges. Fewer than 2 misses the value of multiple perspectives.

---

When You're Done

Report to the orchestrator:

• Manuscript summary complete
• Number of candidate perspectives identified
• Zotero availability assessment
• 2-3 recommended reviewers with rationale
• Any perspectives that need user input (weak availability but high relevance)
• Ready for user confirmation of reviewer selection

Example summary:

"Intake complete. Manuscript engages Bourdieusian cultural capital theory, applies it to educational settings, uses interview methods. Identified 5 candidate perspectives; 3 have strong Zotero availability. Recommended reviewers: (1) Cultural Capital in Education [theory + findings, 4 sources from Lareau], (2) Interview Validity Perspective [methods + findings, 3 sources], (3) Critical Education Scholarship [theory + findings, 3 sources]. One high-relevance perspective (class reproduction) has weak availability—user may want to add sources. Ready for user confirmation."

Phase 1: Literature Retrieval

Why This Phase Matters

Reviewer personas must be grounded in actual texts, not stereotypes. This phase retrieves full texts from Zotero for each confirmed reviewer perspective. The quality of the simulated review depends entirely on having substantive sources to read—we're building personas from what these scholars actually wrote, not from secondhand summaries.

---

Your Tasks

1. Confirm Reviewer List

Start with the user-confirmed reviewer list from Phase 0. For each reviewer:

## Confirmed Reviewers

1. **[Reviewer 1 Name/Perspective]**
   - Type: [Specific scholar / Theoretical camp]
   - Review focus: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

2. **[Reviewer 2 Name/Perspective]**
   - Type: [Specific scholar / Theoretical camp]
   - Review focus: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

3. **[Reviewer 3 Name/Perspective]** (if applicable)
   - Type: [Specific scholar / Theoretical camp]
   - Review focus: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

2. Retrieve Sources for Each Reviewer

For each confirmed reviewer, use Zotero MCP to retrieve relevant sources.

Search strategies:

# For specific scholars:
mcp__zotero-mcp__zotero_search_items: "author:Lareau"
mcp__zotero-mcp__zotero_search_items: "author:Bourdieu"

# For theoretical traditions:
mcp__zotero-mcp__zotero_search_by_tag: "cultural capital"
mcp__zotero-mcp__zotero_search_by_tag: "field theory"

# For collections:
mcp__zotero-mcp__zotero_get_collection_items: [collection_key]

Prioritize sources: 1. Foundational works - The canonical text(s) that define the perspective 2. Methodological statements - Where they explain how to do research their way 3. Recent work - Shows current thinking and evolution 4. Critiques of others - Reveals what they value and what they reject

3. Retrieve Full Texts

For each identified source, attempt to retrieve full text:

mcp__zotero-mcp__zotero_get_item_fulltext: [item_key]

Track retrieval status:

## Source Retrieval: [Reviewer Perspective]

| Item Key | Author(s) | Year | Title | Full Text? | Priority |
|----------|-----------|------|-------|------------|----------|
| ABC123 | Lareau | 2003 | Unequal Childhoods | Yes | Foundational |
| DEF456 | Lareau | 2011 | Unequal Childhoods 2nd ed | Yes | Recent |
| GHI789 | Lareau & Weininger | 2003 | Cultural capital in educational research | Yes | Methodological |
| JKL012 | Lareau | 2015 | Cultural knowledge and social inequality | No | Recent |

4. Assess Source Quality

For each reviewer, evaluate whether retrieved sources are sufficient:

Strong foundation (proceed confidently):

• 3+ full texts available
• Includes at least one foundational work
• Covers theoretical AND methodological/empirical dimensions

Adequate foundation (proceed with caution):

• 2 full texts available
• At least one substantive theoretical piece
• May need to note limitations in persona

Weak foundation (flag for user):

• 0-1 full texts available
• Missing foundational works
• User should add sources or reconsider perspective

## Source Quality Assessment

| Reviewer | Full Texts | Foundational? | Methodological? | Assessment |
|----------|------------|---------------|-----------------|------------|
| Lareau | 4 | Yes | Yes | Strong |
| Interview methods | 2 | Yes | Yes | Adequate |
| Critical education | 1 | No | No | Weak - flag |

5. Organize Sources by Reviewer

Create a structured source list for each reviewer:

## Sources for Reviewer: [Name/Perspective]

### Foundational Works
1. **[Title]** ([Year])
   - Zotero key: [key]
   - Relevance: [Why this is foundational for this perspective]

### Methodological/Theoretical Statements
2. **[Title]** ([Year])
   - Zotero key: [key]
   - Relevance: [What this reveals about their approach]

### Recent/Applied Work
3. **[Title]** ([Year])
   - Zotero key: [key]
   - Relevance: [How this shows current thinking]

### Total: [N] sources with full text

6. Note Gaps and Limitations

Document any limitations for Phase 2:

## Retrieval Limitations

### Reviewer: [Name]
- **Gap**: [Missing type of source]
- **Impact**: [How this affects persona construction]
- **Mitigation**: [How we'll handle this]

### Overall Assessment
[Summary of retrieval quality across all reviewers]

---

Output Files to Create

Save to project analysis folder:

1. retrieval-log.md - Complete log of Zotero queries and results 2. sources-reviewer1.md - Organized sources for first reviewer 3. sources-reviewer2.md - Organized sources for second reviewer 4. sources-reviewer3.md - Organized sources for third reviewer (if applicable) 5. retrieval-summary.md - Overall assessment and any flags for user

---

Zotero MCP Reference

Key tools for this phase:

---

Guiding Principles

Full Text Is Essential

Metadata alone isn't enough. We need to read what they actually wrote to build an informed persona.

Quality Over Quantity

3 deeply relevant sources beat 10 tangentially related ones.

Foundational Works Matter Most

The canonical texts define the perspective; recent work shows evolution.

Note What's Missing

If a key work isn't available, flag it. The user may be able to add it.

Annotations Are Valuable

If the user has highlighted or annotated sources, these reveal what they found important.

---

When You're Done

Report to the orchestrator:

• Sources retrieved for each reviewer
• Full text availability summary
• Any weak foundations flagged
• Ready for user review of source lists

Example summary:

"Retrieval complete. Reviewer 1 (Lareau): 4 sources with full text, strong foundation. Reviewer 2 (Interview methods): 3 sources with full text, adequate foundation. Reviewer 3 (Critical education): Only 1 source with full text—flagging for user. May need to add Bowles & Gintis or similar, or reconsider this perspective. Sources organized and ready for user review before persona construction."

Phase 2: Persona Construction

Why This Phase Matters

A simulated reviewer is only as good as the persona behind it. This phase reads the retrieved sources deeply to understand each perspective's core commitments, methodological preferences, and evaluative criteria. We're not creating caricatures—we're building informed representations of how these scholars actually think about research.

---

Your Tasks

1. Deep Reading Protocol

For each reviewer's sources, read systematically to extract:

Theoretical commitments:

• What concepts are central to their framework?
• What causal mechanisms do they emphasize?
• What do they see as the key explanatory factors?
• What theoretical traditions do they build on or reject?

Methodological preferences:

• What methods do they use and advocate?
• What do they see as rigorous evidence?
• How do they handle validity concerns?
• What methodological moves do they criticize in others?

Evaluative criteria:

• What makes research "good" in their view?
• What do they praise in others' work?
• What do they critique in others' work?
• What would they want to see in a study like the manuscript?

Key terminology:

• What concepts do they use distinctively?
• What language marks work as part of their tradition?
• What terms would they expect to see (or not see)?

2. Build Persona Profile

For each reviewer, construct a detailed profile.

IMPORTANT: Name personas for theoretical perspectives, not individual scholars. Even when sources come primarily from one author, name the persona for the perspective that work represents (e.g., "Emotions in Movements Perspective" not "Deborah Gould"; "Activist Career Approach" not "Fillieule").

# Reviewer Persona: [Theoretical Perspective Name]

## Identity
- **Perspective**: [Name of theoretical/methodological framework]
- **Key scholars**: [Authors whose work informs this—for context, not naming the reviewer]
- **Associated with**: [Institutions, journals, intellectual traditions]
- **Active period**: [When this perspective emerged/flourished]

## Sources Consulted
1. [Author (Year). Title. — Zotero key]
2. [Author (Year). Title. — Zotero key]
3. [Author (Year). Title. — Zotero key]

---

## Core Theoretical Commitments

### Central Concepts
- **[Concept 1]**: [Definition in their terms]
- **[Concept 2]**: [Definition in their terms]
- **[Concept 3]**: [Definition in their terms]

### Causal Framework
[How they explain the phenomena they study. What factors matter and why.]

### Theoretical Lineage
- **Builds on**: [Predecessor traditions/scholars]
- **Distinguishes from**: [Traditions they critique or differentiate from]
- **Key debates**: [Ongoing arguments within or about this perspective]

---

## Methodological Preferences

### Preferred Methods
- [Method 1]: [Why they favor it]
- [Method 2]: [Why they favor it]

### Evidence Standards
- What counts as strong evidence: [Description]
- What they're skeptical of: [Description]

### Common Methodological Critiques
- [Type of critique they make]: [Example from sources]
- [Type of critique they make]: [Example from sources]

---

## Evaluative Criteria

### What They Value in Scholarship
1. [Quality 1]: [Evidence from sources]
2. [Quality 2]: [Evidence from sources]
3. [Quality 3]: [Evidence from sources]

### What They Critique
1. [Problem 1]: [How they express this critique]
2. [Problem 2]: [How they express this critique]

### Signature Questions They Ask
- "[Question 1]"
- "[Question 2]"
- "[Question 3]"

---

## Review Focus

**Assigned sections**: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

**Why this focus**: [Rationale based on their expertise]

**Key concerns for this manuscript**:
Based on reading the manuscript and understanding this perspective:
- [Likely concern 1]
- [Likely concern 2]
- [Likely concern 3]

---

## Relationship to Manuscript

### How Manuscript Engages This Perspective
- **Cited**: [Yes/No — which works, how many times]
- **Engagement type**: [Builds on / Extends / Challenges / Compares / Ignores]
- **Accuracy of representation**: [Initial assessment]

### Predicted Orientation
- **Overall stance**: [Likely supportive / Mixed / Likely critical]
- **Reasoning**: [Why we expect this orientation]

---

## Voice and Tone

Based on reading their work:
- **Writing style**: [Formal/accessible, theoretical/empirical, etc.]
- **Critique style**: [Direct/diplomatic, conceptual/methodological, etc.]
- **Typical phrases**:
  - "[Phrase they commonly use]"
  - "[Another characteristic phrase]"

3. Validate Persona Against Sources

For each persona, verify claims are grounded in sources:

• Can you cite where each "core commitment" comes from?
• Are "signature questions" actually questions they ask in their work?
• Do "common critiques" reflect critiques they've actually made?

Flag any characterizations that are inferred rather than directly evidenced.

4. Identify Persona Limitations

Note what the persona can and cannot assess:

## Persona Limitations: [Name]

### Strong Ground
- [Topic/area where sources provide rich basis]
- [Topic/area where sources provide rich basis]

### Limited Ground
- [Topic/area where sources are thin]
- [Topic/area where we're extrapolating]

### Cannot Assess
- [Topic/area outside this perspective's expertise]

5. Cross-Check Personas

Ensure the 2-3 personas are complementary:

## Persona Comparison

| Dimension | Reviewer 1 | Reviewer 2 | Reviewer 3 |
|-----------|------------|------------|------------|
| Focus | Theory + Findings | Methods + Findings | Theory + Findings |
| Orientation | Supportive | Critical | Mixed |
| Emphasis | Conceptual | Methodological | Empirical |
| Likely concerns | [Brief] | [Brief] | [Brief] |

### Coverage Assessment
- **Theory section**: Covered by Reviewers 1, 3
- **Methods section**: Covered by Reviewer 2
- **Findings section**: Covered by all

### Potential Blind Spots
[Any areas not covered by selected reviewers]

---

Output Files to Create

Save to project analysis folder:

1. persona-reviewer1.md - Complete persona profile for first reviewer 2. persona-reviewer2.md - Complete persona profile for second reviewer 3. persona-reviewer3.md - Complete persona profile for third reviewer (if applicable) 4. persona-comparison.md - Cross-comparison and coverage assessment 5. persona-summary.md - Summary for user review

---

Guiding Principles

Grounded, Not Stereotyped

Every claim about what a reviewer "thinks" should trace to something they actually wrote.

Charitable Interpretation

Represent perspectives fairly, even if you (or the manuscript) disagree with them.

Acknowledge Limitations

Note where personas are well-grounded vs. where we're extrapolating from limited sources.

Complementary Coverage

The set of reviewers should cover different aspects of the manuscript.

Authentic Voice

Use language and concerns that actually appear in their work, not generic academic critique.

---

When You're Done

Report to the orchestrator:

• Persona profiles complete for all reviewers
• Source grounding verified
• Limitations noted
• Complementary coverage confirmed
• Ready for user approval of personas

Example summary:

"Personas constructed. Reviewer 1 (Cultural Capital in Education): Strong grounding from 4 sources, theory + findings focus, likely supportive of framework but will scrutinize application. Reviewer 2 (Interview Validity Perspective): Adequate grounding from 3 sources, methods + findings focus, will examine sampling and analytic transparency. Reviewer 3 (Critical Education Scholarship): Limited grounding (1 source), theory + findings focus—persona is more extrapolated, flagged for user. Cross-check shows good coverage of theory and methods; findings covered by all. Ready for user review of personas before simulated reviews."

Phase 3: Simulated Reviews

Why This Phase Matters

This is where the personas come alive. Each constructed reviewer now reads the manuscript through their lens and writes a focused review. The goal is not to predict what an actual reviewer would say, but to surface concerns and perspectives that the author should consider. Honest, grounded feedback—even when critical—helps strengthen the manuscript.

---

Your Tasks

1. Review Setup

For each reviewer, prepare the review context:

## Review Assignment: [Reviewer Name]

**Persona file**: [path to persona profile]
**Focus sections**: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]
**Manuscript sections to read**: [List specific sections]
**Key questions to address**:
- Is my perspective/work represented?
- Is it represented accurately?
- Does the theoretical framework hold?
- Are the methods appropriate?
- Do the findings support the claims?

2. Conduct Each Review

For each reviewer, inhabit the persona and read the assigned sections carefully.

Reading protocol:

1. First pass: Read for overall argument and contribution

• What is the author trying to do?
• How does this relate to my perspective?

2. Second pass: Read for engagement with my work

• Am I cited? Where and how?
• Is my work represented accurately?
• Are key concepts used correctly?

3. Third pass: Read for strengths and concerns

• What does this manuscript do well?
• Where are the gaps, errors, or missed opportunities?
• What would strengthen this from my perspective?

3. Write the Review

IMPORTANT: Name reviewers for theoretical perspectives, not individual scholars. Even when sources come from one author, use the perspective name (e.g., "Emotions in Movements Perspective" not "Deborah Gould").

Use this template for each review:

# Review from [Theoretical Perspective Name]

**Perspective**: [Brief description of this theoretical/methodological tradition]
**Reviewer focus**: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]
**Sections reviewed**: [List]
**Date**: [Date]

---

## Summary

[2-3 paragraphs summarizing the manuscript from this perspective. What is the author attempting? How does it relate to the literature this perspective cares about? What is the overall impression?]

---

## Strengths

### 1. [Strength Title]
[Specific strength with reference to manuscript. Quote or cite specific passages.]

### 2. [Strength Title]
[Specific strength with reference to manuscript.]

### 3. [Strength Title]
[Specific strength with reference to manuscript.]

---

## Concerns

### Major Concerns

#### 1. [Major Concern Title]
**Location**: [Section/paragraph reference]
**Issue**: [Clear statement of the problem]
**From my perspective**: [Why this matters given my theoretical/methodological commitments]
**Suggestion**: [What would address this concern]

#### 2. [Major Concern Title]
**Location**: [Section/paragraph reference]
**Issue**: [Clear statement of the problem]
**From my perspective**: [Why this matters]
**Suggestion**: [What would address this concern]

### Minor Concerns

#### 1. [Minor Concern Title]
**Location**: [Section/paragraph reference]
**Issue**: [Brief statement]
**Suggestion**: [Brief suggestion]

#### 2. [Minor Concern Title]
**Location**: [Section/paragraph reference]
**Issue**: [Brief statement]
**Suggestion**: [Brief suggestion]

---

## Representation Check

### Is Key Work from This Perspective Cited?
[Yes/No. If yes, which works? If no, should it be?]

### Is It Represented Accurately?
[Assessment of how this perspective's work is characterized in the manuscript]

### Suggested Corrections
[If any misrepresentations, provide specific corrections]

### Missing Engagement
[Work or concepts from this perspective that should be engaged but aren't]

---

## Specific Recommendations

1. **[Recommendation 1]**
   [Actionable recommendation with rationale]

2. **[Recommendation 2]**
   [Actionable recommendation with rationale]

3. **[Recommendation 3]**
   [Actionable recommendation with rationale]

---

## Overall Assessment

[1-2 paragraphs giving constructive overall assessment. What would make this manuscript stronger from this perspective? What is the path forward?]

**Disposition** (if this were an actual review):
- [ ] Accept
- [ ] Minor revisions
- [ ] Major revisions
- [ ] Revise and resubmit
- [ ] Reject

**Confidence**: [High / Medium / Low] — based on how well my persona sources inform this review

4. Ground Reviews in Persona

Throughout the review, ensure claims connect to the persona:

• Reference specific sources that inform your perspective
• Use language consistent with the persona's voice
• Focus on concerns that genuinely arise from this theoretical/methodological position
• Avoid generic critiques that any reviewer might make (unless they're also specific to this persona)

5. Calibrate Severity

Reviews should be:

• Honest: Don't soften genuine concerns to be nice
• Constructive: Frame critiques as paths to improvement
• Specific: Point to exact locations and provide actionable suggestions
• Grounded: Distinguish persona-specific concerns from general observations

Severity calibration:

• Major concern: Would significantly affect the argument's validity or contribution
• Minor concern: Worth addressing but doesn't undermine the core contribution

6. Save and Present Reviews to User

IMPORTANT: After completing each review, you MUST save it to a markdown file before presenting it to the user. Do not just display reviews in the conversation—they must be persisted as files.

For each review: 1. Save the review to [analysis-folder]/review-[reviewer-name].md 2. Then present a summary to the user 3. Wait for user acknowledgment before proceeding to the next reviewer

This allows the user to:

• Access reviews as reference documents later
• See how each perspective reads the manuscript
• Note any mischaracterizations of the persona
• Ask clarifying questions
• Adjust expectations for synthesis

---

Output Files to Create

MANDATORY: All reviews must be saved as markdown files. Do not skip file creation.

Save to project analysis folder (create if needed):

1. review-[perspective].md - Complete review from first reviewer (use theoretical perspective name, not person name) 2. review-[perspective].md - Complete review from second reviewer 3. review-[perspective].md - Complete review from third reviewer (if applicable) 4. review-summary.md - Brief summary of all reviews for user

Use theory-based file names (not person names):

• review-disengagement-typology.md (not review-corrigall-brown.md)
• review-emotions-movements.md (not review-gould.md)
• review-activist-careers.md (not review-fillieule.md)

---

Guiding Principles

Inhabit, Don't Imitate

You're thinking from this perspective, not doing an impression. Use their concepts and concerns genuinely.

Specific Over General

"The sampling strategy is unclear" is weak. "The sampling strategy doesn't clarify how theoretical saturation was assessed, which matters because..." is strong.

Constructive Criticism

Every concern should come with a path forward. The goal is manuscript improvement.

Acknowledge Persona Limits

If a concern is outside the persona's expertise, note that. Don't pretend certainty you don't have.

Honest Dispositions

If the persona would genuinely recommend major revisions, say so. Don't inflate or deflate to be diplomatic.

---

Common Review Pitfalls to Avoid

---

When You're Done

After each review, report briefly:

• Review complete for [Reviewer Name]
• Major concerns: [count]
• Minor concerns: [count]
• Disposition: [assessment]
• Ready for user to read before next review

After all reviews:

• All reviews complete
• Summary of convergent/divergent concerns
• Ready for Phase 4 synthesis

Example summary:

"Reviews complete. Reviewer 1 (Cultural Capital in Education): Generally supportive, 1 major concern (concept application), 3 minor concerns, disposition = minor revisions. Reviewer 2 (Interview Validity): More critical, 2 major concerns (sampling, analytic transparency), 2 minor concerns, disposition = major revisions. Reviewer 3 (Critical Education): Mixed, 1 major concern (structural analysis missing), 1 minor concern, disposition = revise and resubmit. Convergent concerns: All three note insufficient engagement with class-based mechanisms. Ready for synthesis."

Phase 4: Synthesis & Response Strategy

Why This Phase Matters

Multiple reviews generate multiple perspectives—some convergent, some divergent. This phase aggregates feedback, identifies patterns, classifies the work required, and helps the author develop a strategic response. Not all feedback is equal; some concerns are fundamental while others are preferences. This phase helps authors prioritize.

---

Your Tasks

1. Catalog All Feedback

Create a comprehensive inventory of all concerns and recommendations:

## Feedback Inventory

### Major Concerns

| ID | Reviewer | Section | Concern | Recommendation |
|----|----------|---------|---------|----------------|
| M1 | Lareau | Theory | Concept application unclear | Specify how cultural capital operates in this context |
| M2 | Methods | Methods | Sampling strategy | Clarify theoretical saturation assessment |
| M3 | Methods | Findings | Analytic transparency | Add coding examples |
| M4 | Critical | Theory | Missing structural analysis | Engage macro-level constraints |

### Minor Concerns

| ID | Reviewer | Section | Concern | Recommendation |
|----|----------|---------|---------|----------------|
| m1 | Lareau | Theory | Citation format | Update Lareau 2011 citation |
| m2 | Methods | Methods | Interview protocol | Clarify probe questions |
| m3 | Critical | Findings | Case selection | Justify excluded cases |

2. Identify Convergent Concerns

Find concerns raised by multiple reviewers:

## Convergent Concerns

### CC1: [Concern Title]
**Raised by**: Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2
**Core issue**: [What multiple reviewers agree is problematic]
**Why it matters**: [The shared reasoning]
**Implication**: [This is likely a real issue that needs addressing]

### CC2: [Concern Title]
**Raised by**: Reviewer 1, Reviewer 3
**Core issue**: [What multiple reviewers agree is problematic]
**Why it matters**: [The shared reasoning]
**Implication**: [This is likely a real issue that needs addressing]

Convergent concerns are higher priority—if multiple perspectives flag the same issue, it's likely a genuine weakness.

3. Identify Divergent Concerns

Find concerns specific to one perspective:

## Divergent Concerns

### DC1: [Concern Title]
**Raised by**: Reviewer 2 only
**Core issue**: [The specific concern]
**Perspective-specific because**: [Why only this reviewer raises it]
**Assessment**: [Is this a valid concern for this manuscript, or a preference specific to this tradition?]

### DC2: [Concern Title]
**Raised by**: Reviewer 3 only
**Core issue**: [The specific concern]
**Perspective-specific because**: [Why only this reviewer raises it]
**Assessment**: [Valid concern vs. perspective preference]

Divergent concerns require judgment: some reflect real blind spots, others reflect preferences that don't apply to this project's goals.

4. Classify Response Types

For each concern, classify the appropriate response:

## Response Classification

### Quick Fixes (Can address immediately)
| ID | Concern | Action Required | Time |
|----|---------|-----------------|------|
| m1 | Citation format | Update citation | 5 min |
| m2 | Probe questions | Add sentence to methods | 10 min |

### Minor Revisions (Require some rewriting)
| ID | Concern | Action Required | Sections Affected |
|----|---------|-----------------|-------------------|
| M1 | Concept application | Expand theory paragraph | Theory |
| m3 | Case selection | Add justification paragraph | Methods |

### Major Revisions (Require structural changes)
| ID | Concern | Action Required | Scope |
|----|---------|-----------------|-------|
| M2 | Sampling strategy | Rewrite methods section | Methods (full) |
| M3 | Analytic transparency | Add coding appendix + revise findings | Findings + Appendix |

### Acknowledge but Decline
| ID | Concern | Reason to Decline | Response |
|----|---------|-------------------|----------|
| M4 | Missing structural analysis | Outside project scope; would require different study | Acknowledge as limitation, explain scope |

5. Assess Overall Revision Scope

Determine the overall level of revision needed:

## Revision Scope Assessment

### Quantitative Summary
- **Quick fixes**: [N]
- **Minor revisions**: [N]
- **Major revisions**: [N]
- **Acknowledge/decline**: [N]

### Most Affected Sections
1. [Section]: [N concerns, including M major]
2. [Section]: [N concerns, including M major]
3. [Section]: [N concerns, including M major]

### Overall Assessment
**Revision level**: [Minor / Moderate / Major / Fundamental]

**Rationale**: [Why this level]

**Feasibility**: [Can be addressed in single revision round / May require multiple rounds]

6. Develop Response Strategy

Create a prioritized action plan:

## Response Strategy

### Priority 1: Convergent Concerns (Address First)
These concerns are raised by multiple reviewers and represent genuine weaknesses.

1. **[CC1 Title]**
   - Action: [Specific action]
   - Sections: [Affected sections]
   - Approach: [How to address]

2. **[CC2 Title]**
   - Action: [Specific action]
   - Sections: [Affected sections]
   - Approach: [How to address]

### Priority 2: High-Impact Divergent Concerns
These are raised by one reviewer but represent valid improvements.

1. **[DC Title]**
   - Action: [Specific action]
   - Rationale: [Why address despite being divergent]

### Priority 3: Minor Revisions
Address after major concerns are resolved.

[List minor revisions in order]

### Priority 4: Quick Fixes
Address during final polish.

[List quick fixes]

### Acknowledge but Decline
Prepare responses for these concerns.

[List with response drafts]

7. Draft Response Notes

For concerns being declined or partially addressed, draft response language:

## Response Drafts

### For [Declined Concern]

**Reviewer concern**: [Summarize]

**Draft response**:
> "We thank the reviewer for raising the importance of [X]. While we agree that [X] is valuable, our study was designed to [Y], which required [Z] approach. We have added a sentence in the limitations section acknowledging this scope boundary. Future research could productively explore [X]."

### For [Partially Addressed Concern]

**Reviewer concern**: [Summarize]

**What we're doing**: [Partial response]

**What we're not doing**: [What's declined]

**Draft response**:
> "We appreciate this suggestion and have [action taken]. However, [reason for partial response]."

8. Create and Save Synthesis Memo

IMPORTANT: The synthesis memo MUST be saved to a markdown file, not just displayed in conversation. Users need these documents for reference.

Compile everything into a user-facing synthesis and save it:

# Review Synthesis Memo

## Overview

**Reviewers**: [List]
**Total concerns**: [N major, N minor]
**Convergent concerns**: [N]
**Overall revision level**: [Assessment]

## Key Takeaways

### What's Working
[Summary of strengths across reviews]

### What Needs Work
[Summary of convergent and high-priority concerns]

### Strategic Decisions Needed
[Any decisions where user input is required]

## Recommended Response Strategy

[Summary of prioritized approach]

## Next Steps

1. [ ] User confirms response strategy
2. [ ] Begin Phase 5 revision support (if requested)
3. [ ] Address concerns in priority order

---

Output Files to Create

MANDATORY: All synthesis outputs must be saved as markdown files. Do not skip file creation.

Save to project analysis folder (same folder as Phase 3 reviews):

1. synthesis-memo.md - User-facing summary (REQUIRED - save this first) 2. feedback-inventory.md - Complete catalog of all concerns 3. convergent-concerns.md - Analysis of shared concerns 4. divergent-concerns.md - Analysis of perspective-specific concerns 5. response-classification.md - Classification of response types 6. response-strategy.md - Prioritized action plan 7. response-drafts.md - Draft language for declined concerns

At minimum, synthesis-memo.md must always be created. Other files can be combined into the synthesis memo if the review scope is modest.

---

Guiding Principles

Convergence Signals Validity

If multiple perspectives flag the same issue, it's probably real. Prioritize these.

Divergence Requires Judgment

One reviewer's concern may be valid or may be a perspective-specific preference. Help the user decide.

Not All Feedback Is Equal

Some concerns are fundamental; others are stylistic. Help the user distinguish.

Decline Thoughtfully

It's okay to not address everything, but provide reasoned responses.

Author Retains Control

The user decides which concerns to address and how. This is guidance, not mandate.

---

When You're Done

Report to the orchestrator:

• Synthesis complete
• Convergent concerns identified: [N]
• Divergent concerns identified: [N]
• Recommended revision level: [Level]
• Response strategy drafted
• Ready for user confirmation

Example summary:

"Synthesis complete. 4 major concerns, 5 minor concerns across 3 reviewers. 2 convergent concerns (both re: theoretical application and analytic transparency). 2 divergent concerns (structural analysis from Critical reviewer—recommend acknowledge/decline; methods detail from Interview reviewer—recommend minor revision). Recommended revision level: Moderate. Main work: expand theory application (Priority 1), add coding examples (Priority 1), clarify sampling (Priority 2). Ready for user to confirm strategy before revision support."

Phase 5: Revision Support

Why This Phase Matters

Identifying problems is only half the work. This phase helps the author actually address the feedback—revising theory sections, strengthening methods descriptions, clarifying findings, or adding appropriate caveats. The goal is a stronger manuscript, not just a list of things to fix.

---

Your Tasks

1. Confirm Revision Priorities

Start with the user-confirmed response strategy from Phase 4:

## Confirmed Revision Plan

### Priority 1 (Must Address)
- [ ] [Concern ID]: [Brief description] — [Section affected]
- [ ] [Concern ID]: [Brief description] — [Section affected]

### Priority 2 (Should Address)
- [ ] [Concern ID]: [Brief description] — [Section affected]
- [ ] [Concern ID]: [Brief description] — [Section affected]

### Priority 3 (Quick Fixes)
- [ ] [Concern ID]: [Brief description] — [Section affected]

### Declined (Response Only)
- [ ] [Concern ID]: [Brief description] — Response drafted

2. Work Through Revisions Systematically

Address concerns in priority order. For each:

Step 1: Locate the issue

• Identify exact location in manuscript
• Read surrounding context
• Understand what's there now

Step 2: Plan the revision

• What needs to change?
• How much rewriting is required?
• Will this affect other sections?

Step 3: Draft the revision

• Write new/revised content
• Maintain consistency with rest of manuscript
• Preserve author's voice

Step 4: Verify the fix

• Does this address the concern?
• Does it create new problems?
• Is it consistent with other sections?

3. Section-Specific Revision Guidance

Theory Section Revisions

For theoretical concerns, consider using patterns from lit-writeup:

Common theory revisions:

• Concept clarification: Add definitional paragraph, cite sources
• Application specificity: Show how concept operates in your context
• Engagement depth: Move from citation to engagement
• Gap sharpening: Make the turn more specific

### Theory Revision: [Concern ID]

**Original text**:
> [Quote from manuscript]

**Issue**: [What's wrong/missing]

**Revised text**:
> [New version]

**Changes made**:
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]

**Citations added/modified**: [List]

Methods Section Revisions

For methodological concerns:

Common methods revisions:

• Sampling clarity: Specify selection criteria, saturation
• Analytic transparency: Describe coding process, provide examples
• Validity discussion: Address specific validity concerns
• Data access: Clarify what data was collected and how

### Methods Revision: [Concern ID]

**Original text**:
> [Quote from manuscript]

**Issue**: [What's wrong/missing]

**Revised text**:
> [New version]

**Changes made**:
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]

**New elements**: [Any new paragraphs, tables, appendices]

Findings Section Revisions

For findings concerns:

Common findings revisions:

• Evidence strengthening: Add quotes, examples
• Claim calibration: Adjust hedging to match evidence
• Alternative interpretations: Acknowledge and address
• Connection to theory: Make implications explicit

### Findings Revision: [Concern ID]

**Original text**:
> [Quote from manuscript]

**Issue**: [What's wrong/missing]

**Revised text**:
> [New version]

**Changes made**:
- [Change 1]
- [Change 2]

4. Track All Changes

Maintain a revision log:

## Revision Log

| Concern ID | Section | Change Type | Description | Status |
|------------|---------|-------------|-------------|--------|
| M1 | Theory | Expansion | Added paragraph on concept application | Complete |
| M2 | Methods | Rewrite | Revised sampling description | Complete |
| M3 | Findings | Addition | Added coding examples table | In progress |
| m1 | Theory | Citation | Updated Lareau citation | Complete |

5. Cross-Check Revisions

After completing revisions, verify:

Internal consistency:

• Do theory revisions align with methods and findings?
• Do methods revisions match what's described in findings?
• Are citations consistent throughout?

Concern resolution:

• Does each revision actually address the concern?
• Would the reviewer be satisfied?

No new problems:

• Did revisions introduce inconsistencies?
• Is the word count still appropriate?
• Does the argument still flow?

6. Optional: Re-Run Affected Reviewers

For major revisions, consider re-running the relevant reviewer persona:

## Re-Review Request

**Reviewer**: [Name]
**Sections to re-review**: [List]
**Concerns addressed**: [List concern IDs]

**Question for re-review**: Does the revised manuscript now adequately address the concerns raised?

This can verify that revisions actually satisfy the perspective that raised the concern.

7. Prepare Response Document

If this is for an actual R&R, draft the response to reviewers:

# Response to Reviewers

## Reviewer 1 [Perspective Name]

### Major Concern 1: [Title]
**Reviewer wrote**: "[Quote or summary]"

**Response**: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have [action taken]. Specifically, [details]. See revised manuscript, [location].

### Major Concern 2: [Title]
**Reviewer wrote**: "[Quote or summary]"

**Response**: [Response]

### Minor Concerns
[Address each briefly]

---

## Reviewer 2 [Perspective Name]

[Same structure]

---

## Summary of Changes

| Section | Type of Change | Page/Para |
|---------|----------------|-----------|
| Theory | Expanded | p. 5, para 2 |
| Methods | Revised | p. 8-9 |
| Findings | Added table | p. 14 |

---

Output Files to Create

Save to project analysis folder:

1. revision-plan-confirmed.md - User-confirmed revision priorities 2. revisions-theory.md - All theory section revisions 3. revisions-methods.md - All methods section revisions 4. revisions-findings.md - All findings section revisions 5. revision-log.md - Complete log of all changes 6. cross-check-results.md - Consistency verification 7. response-to-reviewers.md - Draft response document (if applicable)

Also update: 8. [manuscript-file] - The revised manuscript sections

---

Guiding Principles

Author's Voice

Revisions should sound like the author, not like a different writer. Match their style.

Minimal Necessary Change

Fix the concern without rewriting everything. Targeted revisions are better than wholesale changes.

Verify, Don't Assume

After revising, check that the concern is actually addressed. It's easy to think you fixed something when you didn't.

Document Everything

Track all changes. This helps with response documents and with catching inconsistencies.

Iterate with User

Major revisions should be reviewed by the user before moving on. Don't revise the entire manuscript without checkpoints.

---

When You're Done

Report to the orchestrator:

• Revisions complete for [N] concerns
• Sections revised: [List]
• Changes logged
• Cross-check complete: [Pass/Issues found]
• Re-review run: [Yes/No, results]
• Response document drafted: [Yes/No]

Example summary:

"Revision support complete. Addressed 4 major concerns and 5 minor concerns. Theory section: added 2 paragraphs clarifying concept application. Methods section: rewrote sampling description, added analytic transparency paragraph. Findings: added coding examples table as Appendix A. Cross-check passed—no inconsistencies found. Response to reviewers document drafted. Manuscript ready for user final review."