The information that the study provided about the procedure about conducting interviews was very concise. I feel as without the fully explanation of how they conducted the interviews it can be confusing when analyzing the data provided because we do not know how it was originally found. With the confusion occurring it can lead to more problems down the road for the study and it can skew its validity and results.

The conclusions from the research article are very well written out and do not use any bias when explaining. The authors do a good job directly explaining what the results led to and what can be done in the future with the results and also what other studies can be done to also test their findings out. I feel like this is a very good trait to have in the study because encouraging replication means that they want to find the real truth even if it isn't theirs.

In the article I could not seem to find any information any where that went into who funded the study but it does say that the instution, Innovation Research Interchange, did have a role in the study. With looking into the bibliographies of the authors it can be seen that they all have past research in research article and some of them have even done their own lectures.

I feel as this study could of had partial bias just because the researchers did not take into account how different global companies can differ from one another. So, without doing this then only these results can be predicted for Chinese based companies. But, still using the information recovered is still very vital because it can be an overview for future work that can look into different cultures across the world and what impact it has on companies and their AI usage.

The results from the study was that firms would best be able to use AI by using it in conjunction with the capabilities that they already have. So, in the firms the best use of AI would be to use it with the pre-existing conditions and standards that are already in place.

The sample from the study was 6 Chinese own business that were both private owned and state owned. They also had over 500 employees in each of them. Also, the companies that were chosen all had significant impact for their own respected industry. With all of this in mind its important to understand the true relevance that this study has. With the study analyzing the top companies in China it gives massive insight into the importance of AI and what impact it plays.

This assertion by the author goes into the idea of resources and what impact they have on others. The author kept this meaning neutral which then allows the reader to be able to interpret the situation in any way. Having the ability to find and use resources in the way of creating and evolving theories can be very beneficial because it allows others to examine resources and their impacts.

As I feel like this statement is subjective and sort of factual, the author dives straight into how the most important topic we should be focusing on is the increase in AI. As I do agree that the importance of AI is needed but I think it can be misleading that it is our only importance to focus on AI and not to focus on other things that are impacting us too. When only focusing on certain aspects it can mislead the reader and cause the readers to also fall off task.

I feel as this statement by the author's claim could have been ambiguous. Although it does in fact state correct information about business models, it can be confusing to understand. With the author only going into a brief overview of the point it can cause confusion to happen, this then could lead to the reader feeling that the author is inconsistent.

The information that the author uses both well soundness and consistency when explaining the data that they found. With this, the author is able to convey these factual points with there being an unbiased outlook on the matter. The author does not contradict themselves because the authors keep a consistent opinion and value that they maintained.

This information from the author is high in validity because it is logically structured. The author first starts out with a precise claim and then mentions the evidence behind his claim and then lastly, he reviews his evidence and backs it up with elaboration which explains to the readers of the thought process behind the information.

I believe that the author could have used a stronger argument here by explaining how this intersection has played an impact on marketing. However, the quote only explains the historical background to it. If the author explained how they are connected and how one could use them all together it would make the argument stronger and with precise reasoning it would help immensely.