- [email](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwLsJzmbXfhRmQdtCDlQvzWCksr) Dear Hause, Andrew, & Michael, Thanks so much for your explanation. This all makes a lot of sense, I just want to highlight one aspect: “For example, someone who prefers a cue with sharp edges during training should also prefer this cue during pre-training, and such idiosyncratic preferences will be reflected in effort preference in the pre-training block. Crucially, our current model specifications include effort preference in the pre-training block as a covariate.” This is precisely what the referee expressed concerns about – effort preference in the pre-training block may – in some participants - not reflect effort preference, but a specific liking for the cue that for them happens to be paired with the effort condition, whereas effort avoidance in the pre-training block may for some participants not reflect effort avoidance, but an idiosyncratic tendency to choose the stimulus associated with low effort. Thanks for explaining the use of the covariate – that’s reassuring, as it will also capture stimulus-driven effects in the hypotheses that do not pertain to behaviour in pretraining. Stavroula and I discussed the upshot of my discussion with you yesterday evening, and we would ask you to submit a slightly modified version of your manuscript (you can do this via email), **where you acknowledge the point above in the Introduction**. In principle, it’s ok to also state that you believe the chances of this happening are slim (given the high power). Although I understand why you maintain that position, I just want to point out that the Introduction may not change later on, so assurances about what will likely happen should be used judiciously. **Using different sets of cues for participants sounds like an extra safety-net, which I can editorially agree to without further review**. If you want to include that in your updated manuscript, too, that would be welcome. I have taken Chloe, our EA, into cc; if you could email us the manuscript so that we can proceed to Stage-1 in-principle acceptance, that would be great. --- - [x] acknowledge in the introduction choices could be driven by low-level task features - [x] use different set of cues, as extra safety net