Your clarifications are useful, but a key issue remains regarding analytic flexibility. The reason we ask for the design table is to make sure analytic and inferential flexibility are tied down. Your predictions could be confirmed or disconfirmed by relevant interactions; or by relevant partial interactions or simple effects; or by relevant pairwise comparisons. So what the Design Table needs to include is the key test of each hypothesis. Will you test interactions? Your analysis method involves using credibility intervals; so that necessitates one degree of freedom tests (hence, for example, the use of partial rather than full interactions when it comes to outcomes with more than two categories). Which contrasts will you do precisely? Will you test interactions before moving to simple effects? Under what conditions will you do that? What patterns of results will legitimate what conclusions? How will confidence ratings feed into your conclusions? Do any tests of them consitute a crucial test of any of of your hypotheses? 

In sum, for Stage 1 you want to have thought through the precise patterns that will confirm or disconfirm each hypothesis. Any analyses that do not crucially test your listed hypotheses should be left unstated at this time; they can be put in a non-pre-registered subsection of the Results.

The two reviewers are largely positive about your revision.  The first reveiwer asks for clarifcation on a number of issues. A few further points to address:

1) In your Design Table, list each hypothesis as a row, so it is clear exactly which test addresses which hypothesis and what follows from possible outcomes in each case.

2) Be clear about when you will not conclude anything, i.e. when the ROPE lies entirely within the HDI (which may happen if your maximum N is reached before the HDI acquires a smaller width than the ROPE).

3) You refer to the bottom limit of the 95% CI for particular past studies in terms of minimal plausible effects; what if you looked at the bottom limit of the CI for the combined effect from the studies you list? Just a thought. You could go with a 90% CI.  Otherwise, it is not clear, as you also indicate, you have really found a minimally interesting plausible effect size.  Given that an interesting effect may be smaller than the limits of your ROPE, due caution should then be reflected in the conclusions that follow (e.g. explicitly indicating, including in the abstract, that effects smaller than a certain amount are possible).

Two reviewers have seen your submission and are generally positive. They suggest some clarifications and some  procedural adjustments. One issue they bring up I would like to comment on: While your N has a practical upper limit, you can still show how severely your study tests your hypotheses by simulating with your N how often the HDI would be inside, straddling, or outside the ROPE, given either that a predicted effect sze is true, or that the ROPE is true (see https://psyarxiv.com/yc7s5/) so it is clear how adequate your N is (e.g. is it enough to squeeze an HDI into the ROPE?).  As per the last reference you might also see if you can justify more precisely your minimal interesting effect size. While your suggested value seems reasonable given the effect size of the past studies you quote, one previously recommended heuristic (see ref above) is to chose the lower limit of the 95% CI of the effect in relevantly similar studies (i.e. probably the ones you cite).