Unfortunately, the authors have (again) failed to address many of my comments and concerns:

Comment 2a: I still don't fully understand why the authors refuse to provide a table that summarizes the (relatively small) subset of prior studies that examined sunk-costs involving time. Doing so is not a huge endeavor (there are far fewer studies involving investments of time), yet it would provide a summary of all previous attempts to test time sunk-cost effects, and give us an idea of how replicable those effects are. I won't insist on this point, though I do think the authors are doing their paper (and readers) a disservice by limiting the scope of their paper to a replication of just a single paper examining sunk-time effects.

Comment 2b: The authors incorrectly claim that Olivola (2018) did not contain any sunk time cost scenarios. To the contrary, that paper contained *multiple scenarios* involving sunk time costs (e.g., the "cello lessons" and "potluck cake" scenarios), including scenarios used in papers that the authors *did* choose to cite. Therefore, there is no reason for the authors to not cite that paper as demonstrating a sunk-cost effect for time. Moreover, that paper demonstrates both intra- and inter-personal versions of time sunk-cost effects (i.e., that we also honor *other people's* time investments), which is notable. This omission by the authors is far less justifiable (and requires even less work to correct) than their decision not to include a summary table.

Comment 3: I’m glad that the authors have agreed to increase (specifically: double) their sample sizes. However, it seems the authors are resisting my suggestion that they *also* (not solely) carry out *additional* purely between-subjects analyses that only compare the first study/condition that participants were exposed to. The reasons for these *additional* between-subjects analyses were clearly explained in my prior review(s) and I don’t see a reason not to include them as well (in addition to the analyses the authors had in mind). The authors’ argument that “[their] experience has been that order had very little to no implications in [their] other PCIRRs and replications” is a poor one, and I can quickly counter it with my own experience, which has shown that exposure to prior studies (especially those examining the same concepts) can often impact subsequent responses.

Comment 4: The authors are wrong to claim that participants with 100 studies have no commitment and little reputational concerns. I’ve carried out several MTurk studies in which I limit the sample to workers with 100 studies or less (but with a high reputation score from those studies they did complete), and found that they are no less attentive than MTurkers who have completed many hundreds of studies. I won’t insist on this point, though I think the authors risk not being in a strong position to claim their study is a proper replication of Soman (2001), since his studies involved participants who were likely totally unfamiliar with sunk-cost scenarios, whereas experienced MTurk workers are likely to have been exposed to those scenarios (and debriefed about them).

The Stage 2 paper is ready for prime time! There were a lot of intriguing results - perhaps none more so than the differences in patterns of results across replicated Study 1 and Study 2. It does appear that time is a lot more malleable that most other resources, so the call for more research on what factors might drive the evaluation of time as a resource is a good one.

Thank you to the authors for their excellent work throughout the process!