Table G.4.

Responses of the experts to Question 1 in the second round of email discussion of the consensus judgements Do you consider that it would be reasonable or unreasonable for a rational impartial observer to take this distribution as their judgement for EKE Q2, having seen the evidence and individual judgements and heard the discussion?

Distribution	Enter ‘Reasonable’ or ‘Unreasonable’	If unreasonable, please indicate what aspects of the distribution seem unreasonable to you?
Expert A proposal	A: Reasonable C: Reasonable D: Unreasonable E: Unreasonable F: Unreasonable	D: Although I personally do not agree with the tendency of the true MOET value going towards the upper end, I can accept that the rational impartial observer might find this slight tendency plausible. However, I do not agree with the P0 value of 0.252 (i.e. 74.8% probability of the true value higher than 1). As my opinion for the consensus, the P0 value should be higher. E: Based on the discussion probability > 1 70% seems unreasonable. F: High probability towards values above 1,2
Expert C proposal	A: Reasonable C: Reasonable D: Unreasonable E: Unreasonable F: Unreasonable	D: It is not clear from the proposal of Expert C as to why higher probability for the upper bound of the multiplicative factor (MF) should be given. Also, I do not agree with the P0 value of 0.25 and P2 value of 0.45. This latter puts too much emphasis that the true MOET value is likely to be higher than 20%, which I do not agree as a consensus. E: Based on the discussion probability > 1 70% seems unreasonable. F: Even higher probability towards values above 1.2
Expert D proposal	A: Reasonable C: Reasonable D: Reasonable E: Unreasonable F: Unreasonable	E: 95% bound up to 1.475 seems unreasonable. F: Very high probability for values below 1
Distribution 2 from the meeting	A: Reasonable C: Reasonable D: Reasonable E: Reasonable F: Reasonable	E: I cannot find any strong reason to say this is unreasonable. To me is similar enough to the facilitator suggestion.
Facilitator suggestion	A: Reasonable C: Reasonable D: Reasonable E: Reasonable F: Reasonable	E: I cannot find any strong reason to say this is unreasonable. To me is similar enough to the above. This could be a bit ‘better’ because the upper bounds go a bit upper. F: Preferable than distribution 2 since the upper bound is getting closer to 2 (than in distribution 2) and the median is approximately 10% higher than 1 which is reasonable based on the considered uncertainties (mainly U32).