Thank you, Leo, Mark, and Anastasia, for a thorough and thoughtful report. I especially appreciate your identifying both the pros and cons of greater transparency, and being specific about each. I support the conclusion of this report: that generic requirements for data access and replicability should be avoided, especially when imposed by journals in a submission process. While I recognize that the purpose of this report was to engage the scholarly community in this important discussion (which you've done admirably), I wonder if you might clarify and amplify few bullet-point take-aways for journal editors. I have heard some feedback that people would appreciate a clear signal to editors that may have already adopted the JETS. One potential risk from this report is that editors skim it and conclude, OK, for qualitative work, I presumptively need to see all the bullet points on p. 15, and especially each of the 5 (relatively time- and space-consuming) practices outlined on pp. 16-19. So if I might make one suggestion, it would be to have the "suggestions for journal editors" paragraph on p. 14 be a bit clearer in emphasizing that no one researcher can reasonable do everything; that any one or more of those things may suffice; and that if editors or reviewers have questions about qualitative transparency, they should communicate directly with authors to discuss transparency choices prior to making a final decision about a manuscript. I'm not sure I've got that language quite right, but something in that direction (maybe highlighted, in bold, with neon lights, etc.), could open up an opportunity for a valuable discussion. What do you think?