update-response-to-reviewerslisted

# /update-response-to-reviewers Peer review iterates. The course notes the revision cycle commonly runs two or three times, so a response letter is rarely written once. The most frequent case is a **second round**: the reviewers read the revision and came back with fewer, sharper comments, some of them following up on the previous response. ## Before anything else 1. **Load the style rules.** Invoke `paper-writing-style`. If absent, use the condensed rules in `create-response-to-reviewers`. 2. **Lock the language.** Language of the user's first message, whole run. The letter is English. 3. **Gather the history.** You need the current manuscript, the previous response letter, the previous reviewer comments, and the new comments if this is a second round. The previous letter matters: a second round response that contradicts the first is a serious problem. ## Pick the mode State the mode before starting. | Mode | Signal | What it does | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **A. New round** | A fresh set of comments on the revised manuscript | Write the new round, checked for consistency against the previous one | | **B. Reconcile** | The manuscript changed after the letter was drafted | Fix locations and claims that no longer hold | | **C. Apply suggestions** | A co-author or supervisor commented on the letter | Incorporate each change | | **D. Resume** | The letter is unfinished, usually mid-comment-list | Complete it | ## Mode A: a new round of comments Write the new roun