+
Source corpus expanded to 41 cited references with a coherent bibliography, decisively resolving the "insufficient sources" concern raised by Review 7.
+
Method section rewritten with database list, search dates, eight numbered search strings, an inclusion/exclusion criteria table, and a PRISMA-style funnel — directly responsive to Reviews 1, 3, 5, and 7.
+
Framework restructured from four overlapping pillars into six clearly coded criteria (T1–T6) with a "Core Question" table, eliminating the redefinition redundancy flagged by Reviews 3, 6, and 8.
+
Terminology consistency across abstract, body, framework diagram, and appendix coding scheme — addressing Reviews 2 and 7.
+
Framework diagram (epistemic prerequisites / core / structural context) provides the visual summary requested by Review 1.
+
Section 3.5 explicitly introduces a positive-evaluation dichotomy on algorithmic neutrality, partially answering the "one-sided" criticism from Reviews 6 and 8.
+
AI-use disclosure (Appendix A7) and team-member appendix (A1) implement Review 4's appendix suggestion.
−
Section 3.6 ends mid-sentence ("...while AI trustworthiness and cultural readiness constitute") — an unacceptable editorial slip in a revised submission.
−
Only the radiology use case is presented, despite four reviewers (1, 3, 6, 7) explicitly requesting cross-sector examples; transferability is asserted rather than demonstrated.
−
The conclusion still declares total delegation "ethically unacceptable across all six criteria," reproducing the strong normative posture that Reviews 5, 6, and 8 specifically flagged as exceeding what the evidence supports.
−
The Method section provides procedural transparency but does not problematize selection bias, RTA researcher subjectivity, or reproducibility — the methodological reflexivity issue raised by Review 5 is unresolved.
−
The boundary between literature synthesis and authors' own normative interpretation remains blurred; the paper does not signal where descriptive mapping ends and ethical argumentation begins (Reviews 5 and 6).
−
Reference [41] (Tangi et al.) appears in the bibliography but is not cited in the body, and a few in-text reference numbers (e.g., reference 20 vs 19/20 in Section 3.3) warrant verification.
−
The "right to refuse" delegation suggested by Review 2 is mentioned only in passing in Section 5 as a future-work item, not integrated into the framework.