This isn't really an ideal way to begin a paragraph, as it has vague language all throughout, and doesn't really transition well within the established line of reasoning. The use of "Anyway" implies a greater contrast between the perceived and actual conception of the authors' thesis than actually exists. Based on the readings up to this point, the reader would assume that the authors advocate for a hybrid model of moral agency owing to the unique moral agency of AI. The statement here is not exactly a contrary to that, but rather a further development and clarification if anything. This should be directly stated in the sentence here, or, alternatively, the beginning of the sentence could simply be removed outright. The rest of the sentence is still problematic. The terms of "discover" and "clarify the agency" do not offer too much insight into what the author is actually trying to convey. It echoes previous ideas, making it in some ways feel redundant, but it also doesn't exactly correlate with what the paragraph discusses later.

This placement feels a bit odd. By this point, the idea of hybrid agency has already been introduced and developed to some extent, and the authors arguably already touched upon why such a model is preferred. At any rate, outright saying that you will now begin explaining something feels odd in of itself. A less conspicuous statement might have been better.

It feels like authors are getting ahead of themselves in this section. The ideas discussed here would just be repeated in greater detail in the following paragraph, making this segment appear redundant. It would have been better if this paragraph was confined solely to establishing traditional theories of moral agency, or in other words what it has discussed thus far, and then enumerating how such theories were insufficient for AI. This would provide good setup for the following paragraph, to which this segment could be reasonably moved; it would then be free to explore the hybrid model in depth.

The introduction of Moor's model of moral agency feels fairly random; it isn't really set up prior. The topic is very much important to the section and the article as a whole, but a more smoother transition, along with more exposition, would have been preferred. The authors appear to assume that the reader already has some familiarity with the model, which, depending on their intended audience, might be warranted.

I do not feel as if these are the proper transitions to be used here. "Anyway" and, to some extent, "Besides" imply an impartiality and relative unconnectedness. However, the ideas are very much related to those prior in the paragraph by way of a contrast. There isn't really a clear transition between what IRL is and how it is flawed. A term such as "however" would be better suited in this role to emphasize the drawbacks of IRL.

I do not fully get the purpose of this example here. It does provide an instance of a "good" XAI program which satisfies the criteria discussed, comprehensive scope and understandability. Right afterwards, however, the authors point out how this is insufficient. By itself, the example feels a bit bare. It could have been utilized to illustrate the authors' latter point, but it needs to be better transitioned. A statement emphasizing such insufficiency, or drawing attention to greater concerns in the public, would be necessary in order to properly connect this example with the rest of the paragraph.

I am unclear on which debate exactly the authors are referring to. The only debate or controversy mentioned thus far within this section was that which concerned with which model of XAI to use to best fulfill ethical goals, but it doesn't really align with the content of the statement, which is confusing in of itself. In a later paragraph, the conflict between the "correct" and "excellent" explanations is introduced, which could be what the term is referring to. If so, this section has a somewhat confused line of reasoning.

This line of reasoning is somewhat vague, as the premises do not feel as if they have been properly established prior. The statement here is effectively a summary of the authors' position on AI autonomy, so it follows that the ideas on which this statement is based upon would be found and expounded upon in preceding paragraphs. This is indeed the case, but the relationship is not as direct as I would have liked. The premises outlined here are not per se the quintessential topics of the paragraphs in this section, but they are rather scattered here and there throughout them. There isn't really a paragraph dedicated to explaining the distinction between human actions and algorithmic behavior, or on the origins of moral judgement. These ideas are definitely touched upon, but indirectly. As a result, this section and the authors' reasoning in it could be a little difficult to follow.

I find this segment to be interesting. It is a brief interlude which almost interrupts the ongoing narrative about the intelligence of AI to touch upon the possibility of strong AI. It is debatable whether there is much purpose to this segment. It is somewhat related to the preceding topics, which covered issues and controversies brought up in AI discourse, but it is not exactly pertinent. It might have been better placed near the beginning of a later paragraph which deals more specifically with strong AI. Still, it does not pose too much issue in its present state, and could be reasonably left as it is.

The diction used in this segment is somewhat vague. There is an express line of reasoning present: as AI can make decisions on its own, it possesses a unique moral agency, and for that reason moral agency for AI should be thoroughly reconsidered, especially since it is so prevalent in our lives. But the hypophora here is structured oddly. "To answer this question" is an odd beginning, especially as the following statement doesn't answer the question at all. A more fitting introduction would be something along the lines of "This invites further thought." The following transition of "that said" is similarly odd, as there isn't much direct relation between the two statements. This segment should have flowed more directly between the first and last statements, clearly the most pertinent ones here, while the middle should have been an auxiliary support to the final.