In my opinion the authors have done a good job with this project and executed the study as planned. Below I will respond to the Stage 2 review criteria. In the attached file I have shared recommended edits (using tracked changes) along with some additional comments.

In evaluating Stage 2 manuscripts, we ask reviewers to assess:

· 2A. Whether the data are able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses (or answer the proposed research question) by passing the approved outcome-neutral criteria, such as absence of floor and ceiling effects or success of positive controls or other quality checks. 

Yes, I believe the data can be used to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses. 

· 2B. Whether the introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses (where applicable) are the same as the approved Stage 1 submission. 

Yes, they are the same.

· 2C. Whether the authors adhered precisely to the registered study procedures.

Yes

· 2D. Where applicable, whether any unregistered exploratory analyses are justified, methodologically sound, and informative.

Yes, the complementary analyses using relative prediction error are justified, methodologically sound, and informative.

· 2E. Whether the authors’ conclusions are justified given the evidence.

Yes

I am completing my review based on the PCI Registered Reports Stage 2 Criteria.

1. Whether data are able to test the authors' original proposed hypotheses by passing approved outcome-neutral criteira, sucha s absence of floor and ceiling effects or success of positive controls or other quality checks.
   1. This criterion is met.
2. Whether the introduction, rationale, and tated hypotheses (where applicable) are the same as the approved stage 1 submission.
   1. This criterion is met.
3. Whether the authors adherenced precisely to study procedures.
   1. This criterion is met.
4. Where applicable, whether any unregistered exploratory analyses are justified, methodologically sound, and informative.
   1. This criterion is met. The authors do a good job clearly labeling their exploratory analyses. 
5. Whether the authors'; conclusions are justified given the evidence.
   1. This criterion is met.

The authors have been transparent throughout this process.

I believe there are some key typos or errors. The authors should proofread their manuscript to detect any remaining examples. The most clear example seems to be in the abstract.

In the abstract, the authors write:

"By using this approach, we showed that a positive RPE-based prediction error (lower score of retrospective RPE than prospective RPE) are associated with a higher level of retrospective pleasure, and that negative RPE-based prediction error (higher score of retrospective RPE than prospective RPE) are associated with a higher level of retrospective pleasure.​"

Higher level of retrospective pleasure is used in both sitautions, and so this needs to be changed.

​​