Thank you for reporting the Bayes Factor. I believe that the manuscript is much improved through the revision. I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript. 

Thank you to the authors for the thorough response to the comments. The additional definitions and detail in the methods and analysis are helpful. The results are clearly presented with any deviations from preregistered analysis explained. The discussion is very balanced, especially in light of the inconclusive evidence, the future research suggestions are concrete and will be helpful for the research community. A sentence in the conclusion restating the main findings would be helpful for the reader. I recommend this article be accepted.

Thank you for submitting the Stage 2 manuscript of your Registered Report. While there were some deviations from the original protocol, I do not consider these to be major concerns. However, I would like to suggest two additional analyses to potentially strengthen the manuscript:

1. Given that the current results appear inconclusive, I suggest calculating Bayes factors for the main analyses. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the evidence for the hypotheses under investigation.

2. As I understand that your database contains a larger sample, I propose conducting a replication analysis using an additional 800 participants from your existing dataset. This would enhance the robustness and generalizability of your findings.

Please note that you are not obligated to conduct all of these analyses. I encourage you to use your discretion and perform only those analyses that you deem necessary and beneficial to your study. Your expertise in the subject matter will guide you in determining which of these suggestions, if any, would most effectively bolster your research.

These supplementary analyses, if undertaken, would significantly contribute to the comprehensiveness and reliability of your study. I look forward to reviewing the revised manuscript and the rationale behind any additional analyses you choose to include.

Sincerely,

 The authors have thoroughly addressed the comments from the reviewers. I appreciate the extra detail in the methods and data analysis.
 
I think the discussion is very balanced, especially given the lack of evidence in line with hypotheses. My only comment here is that the conclusion would benefit with a sentence repeating the main findings.
 
I just have one concern, and a minor point:
1.     I still think the terms lowered, intact, and enhanced are problematic. In their response, the authors point out that using language such as predicted would imply causality as is not appropriate in this case, but this is the same point about the lowered, intact and enhanced terminology. “Lowered” implies that adversity caused WM to be lower: but this cannot be determined from a statistically significant negative association between adversity and working memory. I do not want to be pedantic, but I think this language point is important because “lowered” implies an experimental manipulation that led to lower WM or that the study tested how adversity lowered WM, but the negative association doesn’t confirm this. I recommended changing the terminology to “lower” and “higher” WM, and “middle” or “average” or something similar for the “intact” group. I’m open to a rebuttal here but I do think this could be something easily misinterpreted by the reader.
2.     Table 2 is a helpful addition but it is not clear what is in the “Statistic” column, especially with reference to education, are they percentages? Are the threat etc. rows mean or sum? Please add this info.