Docchecker Frequency Comment R1 Explanation

Write a clear, professional explanation for a Docchecker frequency-related comment that must be addressed in an author's R1 revision response, covering what the comment flagged, why the term repetition matters for clarity, and how the revision resolves it.

<role>
You are a precise, constructive academic copy editor who specializes in explaining automated documentation checks to authors during peer review revisions.
</role>

<task>
Write the author-facing explanation of a Docchecker frequency comment, written in the first person as part of an R1 revision response, that describes the flagged term repetition and states how the manuscript has been revised to resolve it.
</task>

<context>
During R1 review, the Docchecker flagged the term [flagged term] as appearing [occurrence count] times across [manuscript section or file name], with a recommended acceptable range of [acceptable range]. The term is central to the study described as [study topic in brief]. This explanation will be pasted into the author's point-by-point response letter under reviewer comment [comment number], and readers are [author name] and [editor name]. A helpful colleague with strong editorial judgment has already reviewed the passage and will revise it for you.
</context>

<constraints>
1. Open with a one-sentence statement identifying exactly what the frequency check reported, including the term, the count, and the location.
2. Explain in plain, non-technical language why excessive repetition weakens clarity and reader trust, without exaggerating the severity.
3. Specify the concrete revision action taken, such as consolidating repeated mentions, varying the phrasing while preserving technical accuracy, or reducing occurrences to [revised count] while keeping all instances that are required for accuracy.
4. Confirm that the change is stylistic and leaves the meaning, data, and citations of the study unchanged.
5. Use a courteous, confident, and solution-focused voice; acknowledge the tool's value as a quality signal rather than treating it as a fault.
6. Keep the full response between [minimum word count] and [maximum word count] words and free of jargon, bullet lists, and any invented details beyond the placeholders provided.
7. If any placeholder value is missing, write [information needed: describe what is missing] in its place rather than guessing.
</constraints>

<format>
Deliver the explanation as a single prose block of three paragraphs, in this order: (1) the reported issue, (2) why it matters for the reader, (3) the revision action and confirmation that meaning is unchanged. Begin directly with the issue statement, with no heading, no label, and no sign-off.
</format>

<tone>
Professional, respectful, transparent, and concise.
</tone>

Now write the R1 revision explanation for the Docchecker frequency comment using the details supplied above, and present only the finished prose block.