[Lee Chapman]

I really enjoyed this one.  It has a slightly different style asking questions at the beginning.  In fact, if you read this one first (I read it last) then it sets everything up nicely.  Do you plan to add any links across the Gemini papers so that relevant sections / words can be accessed by the reader.  There are lots of words and phrases here that could hyperlink across the the what paper.

Linked to the above, it is a bit of an isolated comment about CReDo on page 4.  Needs more detail (although probably not the best place to do so) or a link.

P5: The sub-headings don’t all work.  For example: Q: How do you encourage a new market in DTs? A: Legal barriers!

Ending still looks like it is work in progress?  As the final paper do you want a summary figure for all the Gemini papers – is it even worth including the same thing in all the papers to create more ‘glue’ and show where the principles introduced fit in the wider scheme of things?

[Lee Chapman]

I like the structure of this and especially the link to the SDG’s.  I also like ‘purpose-led technology’ – spot on!

My only comment would be that it refers a few times to a paradigm shift – a term which is frequently overused but I do think applies here, however does it explain in sufficient detail early in the document why it is such a shift?  For example, I am thinking of the modeller who has used observations for many years for asset management – will they get the full transformative potential of what is proposed compared to current state-of-the-art?  It is clear as you read through it, but I do think you need to be careful when using the paradigm word (and phrases like game-changing) to to keep the reader on side early doors.

[Lee Chapman]

Hi, read this one first and I think it does what it sets out to do.  Comments are really just about moving things around for maximum clarity:

P2: Combine the 1st and 2nd paragraphs and actually start with the 2nd to get the WHAT clearer.  Dropping the connected part is fine here as you do come to that later.

P2: The example of climate change feels a bit isolated (1st para) – maybe add a couple more

P3> It could be clearer if you stick to the headings in the preceding figure when introducing physical and digital twins.  The data section for the physical twin may not seem logical to some with the data being discussed in more detail in the digital bit.  You could also mention AI in the modelling section of the digital twin.  Finally, would interventions be more logical to be discussed in the connected section that follows?

P7> Systems of systems – too many headings!  I think you need different different levels of headings to make it easier to follow.