+
Synthesis table (Table 1) now maps factors to pillars and sources, directly answering R1 and R4.
+
Inline numeric citations are systematically used throughout, resolving R2's biggest concern.
+
Source base expanded from 18 to 47, with a PRISMA-inspired screening figure improving methodological transparency.
+
Use case reorganised around all five layers (Governance, Technical, Transparency, Psychological, Agency), responding to R1 and R9; it is also explicitly framed as a "projection", not empirical evidence.
+
Section 5 (Gaps) directly tackles geographic limitations (R3, R8) and de-skilling/longitudinal evidence (R3, R8).
+
AI tool-use disclosure (Table 2) is detailed and verifiable, addressing R3 and R7.
+
The "Responsibility Constraint" mentioned by R7 is preserved and the conclusion ties IDA, XAI, and HITL into a coherent thesis.
−
Trust calibration thresholds are promised in the abstract ("we identify the thresholds") but never operationalised; over-trust/under-trust per layer is still undefined (R3, R7).
−
Layer interactions and internal tensions between the five dimensions are not discussed (R6, R9).
−
Factor frequency / relative weight across the 47 sources is still missing — Table 1 lists them but does not rank them (R1, R4).
−
Governance layer remains thin: legal liability is acknowledged but not resolved; EU AI Act alignment, audit protocols, and rejection criteria are absent (R2, R3, R6, R8).
−
Use case is still a single bankruptcy-accountant scenario; no second profession or comparative analysis demonstrates generality (R4, R8).
−
Introduction retains informal phrasing ("incredible and powerful tools", "etcetera"), which R6 explicitly flagged.
−
Framework's own limitations are not stated; only literature limitations are (R8, R9).
−
SHAP/LIME are still referenced without a brief explanation for non-technical readers (R2).