Reviewer - poor connection from principles to case study

Similar from 2 reviewers

Reviewer A:
From the description of the poster it is unclear which of the principals they list contributed to what degree. Some principles loosely follow best practices of general code development (separating logic and UI, adding unit tests) but others less clear to the reader (limiting user inputs or being verbose on specific input cohorts).

Overall I believe the submission would benefit from more clarity and examples of the benefits. Perhaps an additional literature search or relating it to existing work would provide more context.

Reviewer B:
Specific software tools and standards are mentioned, but with some vagueness (e.g. no mention of CRAN or Shiny in the text, though the terminology clearly implies the R language).