'Collaborative effort' item wording in reviewer checklist not aligned with documentation

[The wording of the 'Collaborative effort' item in the reviewer checklist](https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/blob/85b4c2a3ea32660bec737489e0f25abc6763c562/.buffy/templates/reviewer_checklist.md?#L33) > **Collaborative effort:** Does the commit history show contributions from multiple developers and evidence of iterative refinement through community feedback? appears to be slightly in conflict with the related sections in submission documentation https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/be7a8e8570bb8a9473aa48c451b0c1870b8802fa/docs/submitting.md?plain=1#L35 https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/be7a8e8570bb8a9473aa48c451b0c1870b8802fa/docs/submitting.md?plain=1#L39 and corresponding text from [blog post on scope change](https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2026/01/preparing-joss-for-a-generative-ai-future) > A history of contributions and engagement from individuals beyond the original team, across organisations, is especially welcome, though not essential. Specifically, limiting 'contributions from multiple developers' to the commit history seems to differ slightly from the wider sense of contribution from external parties mentioned in documentation / blog post, and the wording in the reviewer checklist to me implies that evidence of commit history from multiple developers is required rather than being desirable but not necessarily a blocker to acceptance. I believe this was also raised at the last editor meeting catch-up on 2026-01-16 but apologies I can't remember who mentioned this!