@dvzrv@chaos.social Ah, I didn't realize you'd already reached out to them - I may have inferred incorrectly from your article, then, apologies.

I do still feel that the focus on (implications of) conflict of interest is probably not helpful here; much of the article by volume seems to be dedicated to that, but that never seems to really turn into a concrete point, and so it IMO detracts from your criticisms more than it supports them.

I think the criticisms would probably come across a lot more clearly if the article was just about the specific issues you have with the process; eg. about the selection being subjective without that being specified upfront clearly enough.

Those criticisms around their communication seem (to me, at least) like independently valid ones, that do not need be propped up by (honestly kind of shaky) claims of conflicts of interest or bias.