DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/9nm6x
Version of the report: v2
The reviewers are largely happy with the paper, with some minor changes for clarification. Concerning the smallest effect size of interest, I prefer to work in raw regression slopes, as they reflect units one should be interested in unaffected by criterion reliability (https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/7/1/28202/118660/Obtaining-Evidence-for-No-Effect), but you may wish to argue,as you have done, that you will not be claiming an effect of interest exists vs does not, in which case, defining what is of interest is moot. Nonetheless, in addressing Ferguson's point, you may wish to alert readers about these issues in forming their own conclusions about what meaningfully exists, given that readers may well jump to conlusions you are are wise enough not to!
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/56ugm
Version of the report: v1
I now have three thorough and thoughtful expert reviews. All are positive about your research and all ask for important clarifications. I was not sure if you intended quantitiive analyses as part of the Stage 2s, and if so there would of course be a benefit of specifying them in the Stage 1. You should also consider the extra clarity that would be provided by using a Desiggn Table, adapting it where possible for qualitative methods.