This report is very carefully designed.

1A. The scientific validity of the research question(s) - OK

1B. The logic, rationale, and plausibility of the proposed hypotheses (where a submission proposes hypotheses) - OK

1C. The soundness and feasibility of the methodology and analysis pipeline (including statistical power analysis or alternative sampling plans where applicable) - OK

1D. Whether the clarity and degree of methodological detail is sufficient to closely replicate the proposed study procedures and analysis pipeline and to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the procedures and analyses - OK

1E. Whether the authors have considered sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. absence of floor or ceiling effects; positive controls; other quality checks) for ensuring that the obtained results are able to test the stated hypotheses or answer the stated research question(s). - OK

I only have one remark. The authors specifically ask feedback on one improvement:

"We note that when reconstructing the materials we noticed that the conditions in Study 6,
at least as described in the target article, were not entirely equivalent, and seemed to conflate
expectations and outcome. For example, expectations for reputation seemed to conflate whether
the donation was private or public. We categorize this as a possible weakness in the experimental
design and decided to deviate and make an adjustment to the target’s stimuli to focus solely on
manipulation of expectations.
[Note to reviewers: We would appreciate feedback on our assessment of this issue and this
adjustment, and are open to changing it given a well-justified argument and/or clear editorial
guidelines.]"

However, there is not clear information about the comparision of the stimuli side by side, there is only a description and interpretation, so it's difficult to give any feedback.