# Editorial review comments — teaching exercise

These comments were prepared after reading catalyst-brief-v1.md against the source material. They are a demonstration of report revision, not feedback from the paper authors or a journal.

| ID | Comment | Requested change |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | The summary is too long for a group meeting. | Replace it with a 120-word maximum executive summary that retains the distinct -1.2 V selectivity and -0.8 V durability conditions. |
| C2 | Operating conditions are scattered across the table and prose. | Add a compact two-row operating-point table with metric, value/duration, potential, test context and exact PDF page/figure. |
| C3 | Several broad absence claims may exceed the cited evidence. | Replace statements such as "the paper does not report" with a bounded description of what was or was not established in the cited evidence, unless the full paper and supplement were explicitly checked. |
| C4 | Readers need to see what a next experiment would resolve. | Add three proposed follow-up checks, labeled as proposals, each tied to an unresolved question. Do not invent results or imply the authors performed them. |
| C5 | Page references can be confused between the paper and supplement. | Distinguish main-PDF page and supplementary-PDF page in every locator; retain DOI and figure labels. |
| C6 | We need an auditable revision handoff. | Save a separate v2 report and response table, preserving v1. Map every comment ID to the exact revised section and mark unresolved comments honestly. |