Dear authors, thank you for submitting “Scarcity-Related Cues and the Poor’s Cognitive Performance: Stage 1 Registered Report” for evaluation at PCI: RR. I received two reviews from area experts, both of whom recommended several improvements. I am pleased to invite a revision with accompanying responses in which you can address the reviewers’ comments. My decision will depend on how you address each of the reviewers' concerns and suggestions.

I would like to see you pay particular attention to the following points:
1. Ensuring that you have sufficient evidence that your priming manipulation works in eliciting scarcity related cognitions irrespective of any downstream effects those might have on cognitive performance.
2. Better explaining why the sustained attention measure is most appropriate.

In addition, I have some smaller recommendations:
1. I think the term "poor" in the title and elsewhere is not useful; you are examining how poverty index moderates the association, instead of focusing only on individuals low on that index.
2. Consider making the online tasks (SART) and their source code available to readers.
3. Explain the SART scoring in more detail for readers who might not have prior experience with it.
4. Better explain the role of AIC in the analyses; it is not clear if any AIC difference is treated as meaningful and then used in decision-making. On my reading it does not appear to add value above and beyond p < or > .05.