I'd also keep the playback software with the archive. Their discussion of recordings becoming difficult to play makes the decoder part of the preservation job.

I'd also ask which sources of uncertainty the next experiment aims to reduce. That would make a follow-up result easier to compare than simply calling it more precise.

A comparison of the same cells under several conditions would interest me more than another label for the resulting structure. It'd give us something concrete to argue about when deciding how much the arrangement explains.

I'd also want the same breakdown across repeated pulses. The direct conversion mechanism is interesting enough to discuss on its own, as long as we're clear about which numbers were measured.

For an early design discussion, I'd accept some cleanup afterward if speaking helped develop the idea. For a short message, editing a transcription error could take longer than typing the message.

His plan to finish chapters and send them to his sister before assembling the next book sounds workable. I'd still expect another edit once he knows how the chapters fit together. A scene can read well on its own and repeat something elsewhere.

Players can describe a real frustration without knowing its cause. I'd still take that seriously. Asking them to propose the right fix before their complaint counts would throw away useful feedback.

I'd like the next project to budget for a short expansion from the start. New characters in an existing setting would be enough for me. Extra map space would matter less than another good story.