cf. In the given circumstances, and for the given topic, this seems very appropriate. One of the reviewers speaks of a manifesto, and I would agree, but see it as a positive. Obviously, positive and normative approaches to support actionable agendas, like ours, do not escape the yardstick of scientific evidence. We agree that the "normative-prescriptive" tone and use of "should be" was excessive. This has been changed where appropriate. At the same time, it is unavoidable in a paper which is partly a manifesto., in the form of a call for the creation of a Natural Social Contract and for transformation-oriented forms of governance. We want to note that the governance approaches advocated have been tried and tested, yielding insights for future use. The need for critical analysis and the presence of limitations to steering are acknowledged. editor’s comment 3 about being normative: First of all, we would like to underline that it is ok to be normative.
Remove from the problematization the "normative-prescriptive" tone starting from questions and nuisances that justify the study and from gaps in the literature. I am referring to universal and generalist statements with a "should be" tone that do not fit well with a scientific article, like the one in lines 51 to 54, among many others in the article.