WOW! So much here. Amazing. Wild really. Table 18! I'm curious if you've seen anything this big in MEE before.

I think maybe we need to workshop the intro just a touch. I remember that the spatsoc intro was also a different kind of animal.

I don't have a crystal clear vision for what the workshoped version is. I see how what is there is definitely the scaffolding.

I'll ruminate on it.

Thanks for all the work on this Alec. I see how this commenting system works decently for pretty much everything but the intro. But I also think that maybe the intro doesn't need my knee-jerk reaction. But some reflection and then looking at a few different potential models outlines.

I see why this feels out of place now. Maybe we don't need it? Maybe it is something we reference in the introduction?

There's so much here, that I'm not sure you need this.

I agree, but don't know if we need the adjective.

I think most of the time we just mean 'quanitfy' here.

functions?

I must have missed when you taught us what gte is.

and

and

OK. I see this now. And that's great. Maybe just consider whether this piece of the puzzle also responds to the 'call for missing pieces' you talk about in the previous paragraph.

I think you need to have thrown to your Covidence review by now. And this paragraph is a good one because it empirically shows your gap.

Ooh, I like that you look across silos.

I like this idea. I think you could communicate it more concisely.

There is a disconnect between the tools to analyze data and the qualities/quantities of data that exist now, but more importantly are emerging.

I wonder if the introduction needs to be reconstructed with the better perspective you now have on what you produced with all your hard work on the functions. It is unclear to me, maybe because I know a bit about what you did, why the new functions might matter to genetic pairwise relationships.

So am I lost a bit here because this is actually a 'point last' paragraph, and I would better know where it was going if you moved the end to the beginning so it is a 'point first' paragraph? (Both are legit, though we favour point first, especially with ABDCE writing.)

Here's that word again.

Which methods?

I wonder if this paragraph needs to go back to the drawing board. What is its point? What is it selling that we don't have? Why does the study of social structure need what you're selling. And then what do you create, and why is it important.

That was a hard transition. I 100% think OS tools are the way to go. But I'm struggling with flow here.

I really can't follow this sentence. Maybe it's the commas?

Maybe too broad. Thinking: this doesn't need a citation, is an indicator that it is also not doing precise enough work.

OK. We're at comment 4 in this system. The system means I can't rewrite efficiently.

But we then move into sentence two that I could easily tighten up, e.g., remove any conjugates of 'be', and lead with the idea not the method, and maybe have tried to use the topic-stress emphasis with the first sentence, because there is redundancy here that maybe, if finessed, is good not bad.

But this editing approach means those changes are up to you Alec. I'll keep going. But I'm not sure this system is the best way for you to get help and contributions from Quinn and I because we are inhibited from doing the things we can do well and efficiently and I think that means more work for you.

Here I think we will need to be pithier and more precise as well.

From where and with what process. I think those things are a precision that we will want to reinforce as a strength of the process here.

Is there a better word, with more precision, than 'understand'? For our purposes here are we actually "quantifying"?