Table 1 claims to present examples of assessment issues experienced across the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia, yet the “Course of action” column mixes institutional anecdotes with national policy mandates without contextualizing their scalability or generalizability. For instance, the Malaysian example cites a Ministry of Higher Education mandate, while the UK and Australian examples describe single-institution initiatives. How do the authors justify this asymmetrical comparison, and what methodological oversight allowed the conflation of policy-level enforcement with localized, potentially non-representative practices in a table purporting to reflect cross-national experiences?
Figure 1 proposes a hierarchical model for implementing inclusive assessment from global to individual level, yet the article repeatedly emphasizes that inclusion must be contextually negotiated and cannot follow a one-size-fits-all approach. This presents a fundamental tension: how do the authors reconcile their advocacy for localized, nuanced inclusion with a top-down, multi-level framework that risks imposing standardized priorities? Where is the empirical or theoretical basis for assuming that global or national initiatives can effectively inform individual assessment interactions without perpetuating the very power imbalances the article critiques?