Domain review: C1 minor_issues as a failure of the prespecified enrichment test; C2 major_issues for interpreting z comparisons as equal regional associations/preference; C3 minor_issues as a failure of a four-term aggregate enrichment test. Significance moderate,moderate,minor respectively if established within this literature-level scope. I read the full bundle and earlier reproduced all3 outputs from independently fetched hash-verified inputs. Attached additional code audits study-level region overlap and raw association differences; it reuses the author's anatomical definition, not a new anatomical gold standard.

C1: the reported z/percentiles reproduce. They support no detected enrichment under this operational test, not proof that studies use the anterior insula no more often or that a shared system is absent. My count audit gives29/44 time-perception articles versus8427/13415 others with anterior hits: difference+.03091, with a simple independent-study Wald95% interval[-.1094,.1712]. Vestibular is48/83 versus8408/13376: difference-.05028, interval[-.1568,.0563]. These illustrative intervals show uncertainty; they are not survey/cluster-adjusted or a recommended final sparse-data analysis. Both allow materially nonzero associations. The median random-term percentile is a descriptive comparison, not an equivalence test. Report effect-size intervals and prespecified equivalence margins before wording no more often.

The reference pool includes all terms used by30-1000articles, not terms individually matched to each target's frequency: time perception44, vestibular83, interoception368, mood954. Under alternatives, z magnitudes depend on sample size as well as effect size. Random triples also ignore semantic correlation and study overlap among the chosen target terms. Term unions(interoception/interoceptive and sad/sadness) are compared to individual words. Match prevalence and composite structure, report dependence-aware sensitivity, and describe the current random pool precisely. The minimum-z statistic evaluates whether all three selected associations exceed that random-set reference; it does not test anatomical convergence across tasks within the same subjects or prove a common neural system.

C2 major issue: equal z values do not mean equal association strengths, and their difference is not a standard two-region interaction test. Anterior and posterior have different base rates(.6283,.4646), extents and correlated study indicators. Interoception anterior rate.8832 versus.6211 in others; posterior.7310 versus.4571. Their two z values10.259/10.389 standardize different contrasts by different SEs. A difference-.13 is neither a test nor proof of equivalence. Similarly vestibular difference-z-2.366 with random percentile.0999 is a descriptive ranking, not established posterior specialization. Define whether preference means absolute prevalence, incremental enrichment, odds ratio or effect-size interaction, then estimate it jointly with paired-study covariance and uncertainty. Use equivalence bounds for equally strong. The raw anterior fraction actually exceeds posterior in each selected term set; this illustrates why the estimand must be explicit, not that absolute prevalence is the correct test.

The overlap concern is quantitative, not merely hypothetical. The10mm dilation gives8456 anterior-hit articles,6253 posterior-hit articles,5351 both;85.57% of posterior-hit articles are also anterior hits. These are study-level co-hits, not a claim that every shared study has the same coordinate. A single coordinate can also qualify for both dilated neighborhoods near the boundary. The y=0split is an operational coarse subdivision rather than individualized insular functional anatomy. Report robustness to smaller radii and an anatomically justified parcellation, with nonoverlapping definitions if appropriate. The observed overlap limits conclusions about regional selectivity.

C3: the mean of4z values at percentile.7064 supports not unusually enriched relative to this null; it does not show each symptom lacks an association. Sadness has z3.504 and raw anterior rates.6976 versus.6252, while fatigue is negative. Averaging these hides heterogeneity. Fatigue,psychomotor,sadness,mood are broad article vocabulary, not diagnosis-confirmed depression or measured depressed experience. No heaviness term is available. Report individual estimates and interpret the aggregate exactly as chosen. It cannot refute a depressive-symptom mechanism.

A reported coordinate near an ROI is a reporting indicator, not a demonstration of activation in that ROI for a specified contrast; publications can include multiple tasks, patient groups and positive/negative contrasts. Body-text mentions can occur in background/discussion rather than the experimental manipulation. Overlapping participant samples or reports also violate independent-study assumptions. Publication and peak-reporting selection remain; absence of peaks is not absence of neural involvement. These limitations apply even though the code and data are reproducible. The manuscript recognizes several, but title/summary and the plan's necessary-condition premise exceed what this operational proxy can test.

Revisions: preserve the numerical inventory, label negative findings as failures of selected enrichment tests, replace C2 with a precisely estimated paired regional contrast, and avoid treating a negative literature-level proxy as a necessary-condition failure of a neural theory. Targeted within-participant designs would address the motivating mechanistic question more directly. No publisher identity was sought or learned.