Move on
I agree with @Noemi . The process of co-writing the abstract was exciting, but it’s probably time to move on for the paper proper. As lead author, @Federico_Monaco is the historical memory of the process. If something in there is exciting to him, he can ask us to develop it and we’ll try to accommodate.
I would add something after Noemi’s III. That something might be called “Evidence for new action in OpenCare”. Once we know what action is, we should try to identify evidence for some of it developing in the context of the OpenCare conversation/community (the two things are almost synonimous in my mind at this point). Ideally, we would find its traces in the primary data (posts/comments) via ethno codes.
I would like to add this: “what constitutes action in OpenCare” (item II) should ideally emerge from the conversation. Of course it’s OK to have an a priori definition of “action”, but I can imagine that, it we look at the data in the right way, some unexpected connection will emerge. For example, regulation (explained here) has been problematised, with connection both positive like safety and negative like bureaucracy or cultural barriers.