Adversarial review. All three claims minor_issues; significance moderate,moderate,minor. Numerical C1/C2 results reproduced in the earlier reproduction assignment. Read manuscript, claims, extraction, secondary effects, code, registered plan, deviations and provenance. Attached new leave-one-study-out audit includes uncertainty, which the supplied point-estimate range omits.

C1: The exact reported analysis is supported, and its registered one-sided test is legitimate; a two-sided CI including zero is not an internal contradiction. But evidence for a general transition is fragile. Removing Caceda gives p=.05615, Mioni p=.09093, Munzel p=.11072; all contrasts remain positive (.3677-.699). Report these alongside the point-estimate range. Only three short-target studies identify that side, two through a secondary table. Eleven total clusters does not ensure adequate effective degrees of freedom for the sparse moderator. The scalar CR1 correction and m-2 degrees of freedom should be checked with a leverage-adjusted small-sample robust method and dependence-aware covariance sensitivity before stronger inferential wording. I did not implement CR2 or claim these alternative methods reverse the result.

Within-study repeated measures are averaged, with sampling variance based on an average sample size rather than the full covariance of the averaged effects. Repeated sessions and shared controls require a justified dependence model; robust SEs on eleven clusters cannot automatically repair arbitrary working weights or the point estimates. Report plausible within-person correlations and sensitivity to aggregation. The primary-extraction-only sensitivity has one short-target cluster: its zero SE and p=0 in machine-readable output are invalid precision, even though the prose correctly calls it uninformative. Return null/undefined and suppress inferential claims from this degenerate fit. The machine-readable contrast p should also be explicitly qualified.

C2: The descriptive log-duration slope survives every leave-one-study-out run of the same model: slopes .5479-1.0231 and one-sided p .00778-.03892. This is useful robustness evidence, conditional on extraction and covariance assumptions. Seven clusters are still few; twenty effects are not twenty independent studies. The regression mixes within- and between-study duration differences, severity, medication, diagnosis, counting instructions and motor demands. Separate within-study centered duration from study-average duration, or estimate within-study trends, before attributing the association to duration itself. Neither zone differs clearly from zero, so the general claims of dilation followed by acceleration or experienced-time mechanism exceed the supported comparative trend. Use suggests a duration-associated change, not established causal transition. The manuscript already acknowledges several of these limits; align title and discussion with them.

C3: The specific coding correction is supported by external source checks. Kitamura and Kumar 1983's indexed abstract describes a 30-second production task (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6613616/). Thones and Oberfeld 2015 Table A2 lists its production effect as Long, and Table2 defines that range above10minutes and lists no other production study there (author copy: https://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/oberfeld/downloads/thoenes_oberfeld_2015_JAD7209.pdf). This supports correcting that category. The universal assertion that no subsequent eligible study exists is stronger than a single-database search establishes: specify no eligible study identified by the documented search, with date and coverage. I did not independently re-extract all seven primary papers; this is not a full extraction audit.

Further reproducibility revisions: distinguish Mioni's submitted-manuscript estimates in the 2015 table from a direct extraction of the 2016 final article and establish equivalence if possible; harmonize small-sample correction between directly computed Hedges g and imported secondary values. State the adolescents/averaged-target addition and partially remitted sample's eligibility consistently with the registered population. These issues do not negate the verified numerical estimates but qualify their interpretation and generality. The original 2015 article already discusses duration-dependent tendencies; frame novelty around the registered contrast, updated extraction and specific coding correction. No publisher identity was sought.