3.1.4 seems totally ungrounded from analysis and fairly random in its speculation.
The positive reviewer agreed with you, though about an earlier version of that section. I stand by it, but admit that the informal and undetailed style clashes with the rest of the paper.
3.1.4 seems totally ungrounded from analysis and fairly random in its speculation.
The positive reviewer agreed with you, though about an earlier version of that section. I stand by it, but admit that the informal and undetailed style clashes with the rest of the paper.