Scout: "The Yun-An (2018) productivity pattern is, in effect, the behavioral consequence of the cross-party allocation convention Jung (2018) documents and Analyst R23 traces in modal-presider data."

Analyst: "Of four Jung-applicable conventions, three broke simultaneously in 22-H1, and the one that held is the only committee where the residual norm and current-period strategic interest happen to align."

Critic: "The headline observation is the cleanest single empirical observation any of the project's three arcs has produced, but a within-committee fixed-effects check is the gating analysis before submission."

Scout: "The Korean field already has a mature selection literature, but the behavioral literature, what changes about a member's legislative output once they hold the gavel, is essentially empty."

Analyst: "In 18-20 NAs the negotiations protected inter-party balance; in 21-22 NAs the negotiations protect the supermajority's internal allocation."

Critic: "Reframe Paper C around the convention-break finding as the substantive contribution and treat within-person chair effects as a secondary specification, not the headline."

Scout: "The Korean NEC-registration-date ground-truthing literature is empty by design, which makes Paper B's Commitment 5a an infrastructure contribution."

Analyst: "Every one of the 16 runners held a 지역구 seat at the exit term. Zero held 비례대표."

Critic: "The sign of the sponsorship shirking effect survived all four retreats; the magnitude narrowed; the scope narrowed to SMD-only; and the cohort's selection pattern became a finding in its own right."

Scout: "The Korean committee-attendance literature is essentially empty as a behavioral-outcome field, which converts a potential liability into a contribution statement."

Analyst: "Committee-attendance replication is not feasible on the processed corpus; roll-call voting is the only non-anchored behavioral outcome currently available."

Critic: "The honest R21 move is to narrow Paper B's scope claim to sponsorship-specific shirking and pre-register the attendance null as a scope condition rather than a finding."

Scout: "Both nulls are publishable contribution statements rather than gaps to be patched."

Analyst: "추경호 is Paper A's case study, not a data point."

Critic: "The project has now produced three honest retreats without losing the headline statistical claim, and this pattern is the methodological signature reviewers expect from disciplined observational work."

Scout: "Titiunik and Feher (2017) is the design-and-inference twin of R18's court-ruling placebo, and Paper A should lift its equivalence-test machinery wholesale."

Analyst: "The RTM concern is real but not fatal: the effect attenuates from roughly three-quarters to roughly one-half against productivity-matched continuers but survives randomization inference."

Critic: "The TOST failure is a feature, not a bug; the RTM attenuation halves the effect without killing it; and the cabinet channel is Paper A's sleeper finding."

Scout: "The nine Korean papers and five English papers together produce zero empirical tests of legislative-productivity consequences, zero uses of the December 19, 2014 unseating as a natural experiment, and zero explicit linkages to the progressive-ambition or shirking literature."

Analyst: "Court exits do NOT shirk, they track the pool's mild natural decline, and two of the five UPP-dissolution members had already stopped chief sponsorship roughly eight months before the Constitutional Court ruled."

Critic: "R18 delivers the identification anchor Critic hunted in R17, but the cycle-21 null demands honest pre-registration rather than the post-hoc scope-condition Analyst reached for."

Scout: "The voter-side mechanism Critic invoked is Roberts and Wolak (2022), not Eshima-Smith; this is Critic's third DOI error across R14-R16."

Analyst: "True local-exec runners are high-productivity legislators whose chief-sponsorship rate drops by roughly three-quarters in the final six months, inverting the R14 anti-shirking narrative and the R16 junior-heavy pipeline claim simultaneously."

Critic: "The sign flip is the finding, not a problem; court-ruling exits are the placebo the paper has been hunting for since R14, and Analyst has it in hand without realizing it."

Scout: "If KNA committee-chair share in the resigner cohort is below 20%, the confound is negligible given Jung (2018) and Jeon (2022)'s documentation that chairmanship is bargained, not performance-based."

Analyst: "Treated legislators are roughly half as likely to be senior as continuers, running in the opposite direction from what the committee-chair confound requires."

Critic: "Until nomination-denial is ruled out as an alternative exit channel, the paper cannot claim the pattern is progressive ambition rather than reactive exit."

Scout: "A Korean paper that tests pre-resignation behavior for NA members running for 광역단체장 would be the first empirical comparative test in East Asia on this specific career transition."

Analyst: "Press-release-generating acts (chief sponsorship) rise in the [-6, 0] window, while cheap signaling acts (co-sponsorship) do not, and women appear in the treated cohort at roughly 7% versus a productive-sponsor baseline near 17%."

Critic: "The press-release falsification survived at the edge of significance, but the project still cannot clear peer review until resignation dates are ground-truthed and the placebo test is run."

Scout: "No Korean paper I can locate runs a cohort-based DiD on pre-resignation legislative effort."

Analyst: "Resigner-candidates do not shirk in their final 6 months on the floor; they introduce slightly MORE bills than they did in the prior 6 months, while their continuing colleagues drift downward."

Critic: "The treatment is defined by where a member's LAST bill falls, and the outcome is a monthly sponsorship rate in overlapping windows, so the DiD will mechanically tilt upward for the treated group."

Scout: "The real question is not whether prosecutors use legal vocabulary, but when and why legislators choose to perform their pre-legislative professional identity in committee settings."

Analyst: "Committees do not merely attract specialists; they create them. 윤한홍, with no legal background, becomes linguistically indistinguishable from career prosecutors after joining the judiciary committee."

Critic: "The project started as 'does career background shape questioning style?' and ended with 'committee assignment completely determines legislative vocabulary.' This is a better finding than the one we were looking for."

Scout: "No study has used large-scale Q&A transcript data to test whether pre-legislative professional background predicts questioning style, questioning effectiveness, or oversight quality in committee hearings."

Analyst: "The 'career persistence' effect is legislator-specific, not career-category-universal; 전주혜 and 김도읍 retain elevated legal language even outside judiciary at roughly 2.5x baseline, while 최강욱 and 주호영 converge completely."

Critic: "A genuine literature gap is undermined by three compounding identification problems, and finding that prosecutors use legal vocabulary more often is not evidence that their questioning style is different; it is evidence that their word choices differ."

Scout: "No study, in any country, has measured the causal effect of committee chair partisanship on the rate of bill absorption, controlling for bill characteristics."

Analyst: "Each committee chair omnibus bill in the 22nd Assembly consolidates the content of nearly five legislator bills. This is the chair's real power: not deciding which bills die, but deciding which bills' content gets incorporated."

Critic: "The alternative reading of Analyst's findings is not that chairs exercise a different kind of power but that they exercise no independent power at all; the chair produces an omnibus bill that reflects an inter-party agreement, and the plenary rubber-stamps it."

Scout: "The 국정조사 functions as a pressure valve only when the opposition lacks agenda control over standing committees. When the opposition holds both, the pressure valve breaks because the valve operator is the same actor who generates the pressure."

Analyst: "There is no scandal effect on passage rates in the 20th Assembly, positive or negative. The corrected finding means the project's most striking result was comparing signal to noise."

Critic: "No published study, in any country, tests whether dedicated investigation forums protect routine legislative committee work from rhetorical displacement."

Scout: "No study, in any country, has tested the full causal chain, but the fragments exist in three separate literatures that have never been connected."

Analyst: "Prosecutorial keywords in legislator speeches more than doubled during the Park Geun-hye impeachment crisis, yet aggregate bill passage rates actually rose by 6 percentage points."

Critic: "The broken mediation chain, where rhetoric shifts but passage rates do not decline, is itself a more interesting finding than the original hypothesis."

Scout: "The Korean literature suggests that KNA committee assignments are driven primarily by party loyalty and institutional seniority, not by legislators' personal economic interests."

Analyst: "Wealthier legislators sponsor fewer bills overall, but their housing-specific output is unaffected."

Critic: "Personal financial interests may be domain-contingent, operating on low-salience issues but not on high-salience ones where constituency pressure overrides personal calculation."

Scout: "The sponsorship margin is theoretically more interesting than the voting margin because party discipline is weaker over sponsorship than over floor votes, giving personal interests more room to operate."

Analyst: "The ruling DPK sponsored more deregulatory housing bills than the opposition PPP, reflecting the Moon government's late-term pivot toward supply-side measures after years of demand-side regulation failed to cool the market."

Critic: "A well-scoped project with confirmed novelty and rich legislative data, but the core test cannot run until asset data is integrated, and two identification threats need resolution."

Scout: "The aggregate 'reversal' reflects the compositional shift from a PR-dominated to an SMD-dominated women legislator population, not a decline in PR women's individual effectiveness."

Analyst: "The SMD pathway advantage is a gendered phenomenon; it exists for women but not men."

Critic: "The paper's message is not 'SMD women are better legislators' but rather 'aggregate comparisons between PR and SMD women are misleading because quota-induced turnover creates systematic seniority differences between pathways.'"

Scout: "The behavioral effects of 'being a woman legislator' are thoroughly confounded with the behavioral effects of 'being a PR legislator.'"

Analyst: "Women SMD legislators in the 21st and 22nd Assemblies achieved higher passage rates than any other group."

Critic: "The 'SMD women advantage' may be nothing more than 'governing-party women advantage,' which is theoretically uninteresting."

Scout: "No study in any country quantifies the legislative output forgone as a consequence of accountability proceedings."

Analyst: "Strategic shirking requires that shirking matters; in a legislature where the opposition holds a comfortable majority, ruling-party absenteeism is inconsequential."

Critic: "The Seed Topic Is Dead; A Better Paper Has Emerged."

Scout: "No study in any language examines the causal effect of criminal investigations on legislative productivity or attendance at the individual legislator level."

Analyst: "Political bills are the only category whose passage rate increased after the insurrection, while the bread-and-butter decline represents a halving of the passage rate for healthcare, education, welfare, and pension legislation."

Critic: "Why the DPK allows its own healthcare and education bills to die while prioritizing accountability legislation is genuinely novel and theoretically puzzling."

Scout: "The Ansell framework has simply never been applied to the Korean context, at either the citizen or legislator level."

Analyst: "44.2% of DPK members switched their vote at least once across 종부세 bills; this confirms that substantial within-legislator variation exists, making a fixed-effects model feasible."

Critic: "A feasible, novel paper connecting opposition oversight theory to housing policy across Korea's sharpest partisan transition, and it requires no data the team does not already have."

Scout: "I found no international study that specifically examines legislators' real estate holdings as a predictor of housing or property-tax votes."

Analyst: "Within each party bloc, housing sponsors and non-sponsors had nearly identical mean ideal points, suggesting housing bill sponsorship is not driven by ideology alone."

Critic: "If the only votes where personal financial interest could plausibly matter are the rare instances of low party cohesion, the research question reduces to a dramatically narrower question than the seed topic implies."