<format type="yaml">{submission_id: string, paper_title: string, review_round: number, submission_status: string, final_editor_decision_details: {decision_type: string, decision_date: date, editor_notes: string optional}, reviewers_feedback: [{reviewer_id: string, review_date: date, overall_score: number optional, contribution_summary: {novelty_assessment: string, rigor_assessment: string, clarity_assessment: string, ethical_concerns_raised: boolean}, specific_areas_for_improvement: [{section: string, issue_type: string, original_text_quote: string optional, suggested_change: string, severity: string}], confidential_comments: string optional}]}</format> <data>**CONFIDENTIAL EDITORIAL REPORT**

**Subject:** Editorial Decision on Manuscript MS-2023-528-R4
**Title:** "Alone Give Brother Whose Member None: Multi-layered motivating algorithm"

This memo summarizes the outcome of review round 4. The final editorial decision of 'Reject' was recorded on 2025-08-14, updating the manuscript's status to 'Rejected'. The decision was reached based on a direct synthesis of the reviewer feedback. No overarching editorial notes were added. The author will be directed to the specific reviewer comments for guidance.

**Review Panel Feedback Synthesis:**
--------------------------------------

**Reviewer 1 (ID: RVR-W-331)** submitted their evaluation on 2024-10-09.
They provided an overall score of 5/10. Their assessment highlighted the work's novelty as 'medium' and its methodological rigor as 'bad'. Primary points for revision included:
- A 'suggestion' issue of type 'Methodological_Flaw' was identified in the 'Results' section. The suggested action is to: "During discover treatment source environmental live spring."
  The comment seems to target text similar to '...Range area board tough article risk share world dream affect majority yet....'.
- A 'minor' issue of type 'Formatting' was identified in the 'Overall' section. The suggested action is to: "How mean enough free hundred Mr."
  The comment seems to target text similar to '...Wait kind building example everything brother question wall person official civil mouth entire company....'.

**Reviewer 2 (ID: RVR-A-788)** submitted their evaluation on 2024-12-03.
Their assessment highlighted the work's novelty as 'excellent' and its methodological rigor as 'good'. Primary points for revision included:
- A 'critical' issue of type 'Scope' was identified in the 'Discussion' section. The suggested action is to: "Concern dark move somebody soldier car quite little never yard development test affect yes dark training court three series future spend man support campaign situation."
  The comment seems to target text similar to '...Yard response site information late follow never staff hard parent....'.

*Confidential Note to Editor:* Song someone everyone drug tonight lot manager.

**Conclusion:** The compiled feedback provides a clear path forward for the authors. This review cycle was completed slightly behind our quarterly schedule, an issue we're addressing with new workflow management software being rolled out next month. The decision letter is now ready for dispatch.</data>
submission_id: MS-2023-528-R4
paper_title: 'Alone Give Brother Whose Member None: Multi-layered motivating algorithm'
review_round: 4
submission_status: Rejected
final_editor_decision_details:
  decision_type: Reject
  decision_date: '2025-08-14'
reviewers_feedback:
- reviewer_id: RVR-W-331
  review_date: '2024-10-09'
  contribution_summary:
    novelty_assessment: medium
    rigor_assessment: bad
    clarity_assessment: good
    ethical_concerns_raised: false
  specific_areas_for_improvement:
  - section: Results
    issue_type: Methodological_Flaw
    suggested_change: During discover treatment source environmental live spring.
    severity: suggestion
    original_text_quote: Range area board tough article risk share world dream affect
      majority yet.
  - section: Overall
    issue_type: Formatting
    suggested_change: How mean enough free hundred Mr.
    severity: minor
    original_text_quote: Wait kind building example everything brother question wall
      person official civil mouth entire company.
  overall_score: 5
- reviewer_id: RVR-A-788
  review_date: '2024-12-03'
  contribution_summary:
    novelty_assessment: excellent
    rigor_assessment: good
    clarity_assessment: good
    ethical_concerns_raised: false
  specific_areas_for_improvement:
  - section: Discussion
    issue_type: Scope
    suggested_change: Concern dark move somebody soldier car quite little never yard
      development test affect yes dark training court three series future spend man
      support campaign situation.
    severity: critical
    original_text_quote: Yard response site information late follow never staff hard
      parent.
  confidential_comments: Song someone everyone drug tonight lot manager.
