These are review requirements, not claims that work is missing or already completed. This website does not modify the uploaded dissertation, verify every research record, or substitute for committee approval.
Specific flags found in the supplied manuscript
These observations refer to the supplied version, not later revisions. The underlying archived documents and demographic records have not been independently verified here.
Documentary source verification
The Retrieval and Preservation note and Table 4.4 discussion retain a SOURCE VERIFICATION REQUIRED note: the archived-document comparison was AI-assisted, and an independent manual read-through remains to be completed.
Verify each coded excerpt against the actual archived D1–D3 documents and carry any corrections into the tables and discussion.
Demographic information
The participant description and text preceding Table 4.1 retain INFORMATION NEEDED placeholders for demographic questionnaire data; the text also says the questionnaire was administered.
Reconcile those statements using actual records. Complete the summary only where data exist, or explicitly report unavailable information; fictional portraits cannot fill the gap.
Shop-floor sample description
Later sections describe P8, P9, and P12 as the three shop-floor participants, while some earlier wording still refers to two. This subgroup is distinct from the broader frontline role category.
Update stale manuscript references consistently, retain the contrary P8 account, and do not use the subgroup count as proof of saturation.
01Question–evidence alignment
Map each RQ to codes, themes, quotations, contrary cases, and the conclusions it supports. Keep Theme 6 supplementary and distinguish AI awareness from direct use.
02Analytic coherence
Explain what deductive and inductive work meant within a framework where no new codes were added. Do not retrospectively claim a different form of thematic analysis or add unperformed reliability procedures.
03Sample sufficiency and scope
Justify the twelve interviews using study aim, specificity, dialogue quality, theory, and analysis; reconcile the supply-chain focus with the cross-sector sample. Do not claim saturation solely from sample size.
04Document provenance
Check the exact editions, retrieval dates, archive records, coding excerpts, and page references for NCDOT documents. Distinguish public organizational context from corroboration of participants’ own workplaces.
05Ethics and reflexivity
Check the actual approval, consent, anonymization, retention, recruitment, and researcher-position records. Describe the influence of professional experience and relationships without inventing safeguards.
06Source and quotation audit
Verify every quotation against its transcript and every citation against the original publication. Reconcile in-text citations with the dissertation bibliography and check APA and university requirements.
07Discussion and conclusion
Separate reported perceptions, literature-supported interpretation, proposed practices, and future evaluation. Address rival explanations, transferability, limitations, and the contribution to both RQs.
08Committee submission
Confirm the current manuscript date, appendices, tables, formatting, and committee feedback in the actual dissertation document. These website additions do not certify document completeness or acceptance.
