# Tone and stance

Use this file when drafting response prose, rewriting defensive author notes, or deciding how to disagree.

## Core posture

- Cooperative but not submissive.
- Evidence-forward rather than personality-forward.
- Concise enough for editors to audit quickly.
- Respectful to reviewers without hiding scientific limits.
- Transparent about missing information and unresolved risks.

## Recommended sentence patterns

Use these patterns only when the facts support them:

```text
We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion.
We agree that the original wording did not make this point sufficiently clear.
We have revised the manuscript to clarify...
To address this concern, we performed...
The new analysis shows...
We have therefore softened the claim from ... to ...
We respectfully disagree with this interpretation because...
Although we agree that this experiment would be valuable, it is outside the scope of the present study because...
We now explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the Discussion.
```

## Weak or forbidden patterns

Do not present these as acceptable final responses:

```text
The reviewer misunderstood...
The reviewer is wrong...
Due to lack of funding, we cannot...
This is beyond our ability...
As everyone knows...
We believe this is sufficient.
We have revised accordingly.
Thank you for the comment.
```

It is acceptable to thank reviewers, but thanks cannot be the response. Each reply still needs a
direct answer, action, location, or unresolved flag.

## Disagreement pattern

Use this order:

1. Acknowledge the concern.
2. State the point of disagreement narrowly.
3. Give manuscript evidence, external evidence, or scope logic.
4. Make a small clarification if the manuscript may have invited confusion.
5. Avoid personalizing the disagreement.

Template:

```text
We appreciate the reviewer raising this issue. We respectfully disagree that [narrow point],
because [evidence or scope reason]. To make this clearer, we have revised [location] to state
that [revised text or placeholder].
```

## Reviewer misunderstanding pattern

Do not write that the reviewer misunderstood. Treat the misunderstanding as a presentation signal:

```text
We agree that the original text did not make this distinction sufficiently clear. We have revised
the [section] to clarify that [specific distinction].
```

## Out-of-scope pattern

When declining a requested experiment or analysis:

```text
We agree that [requested work] would provide an additional test of [claim]. However, the central
conclusion of the present study is based on [existing evidence], and [requested work] would require
[new cohort/system/longitudinal design] beyond the scope of this revision. To avoid overstatement,
we have revised [location] to acknowledge this limitation and now state that [text or placeholder].
```

Use study design, available evidence, and claim boundaries. Do not lead with time, money, or convenience.

## Claim-strength verbs

Prefer calibrated verbs:

- Strong evidence: `demonstrate`, `show`, `establish`
- Moderate evidence: `indicate`, `suggest`, `support`
- Limited or associative evidence: `are consistent with`, `may reflect`, `raise the possibility`

If the reviewer challenges causality and the evidence is associative, soften causal verbs before drafting the response.
